What does B's response of forcibly preventing A from landing indicate about B's rights?

The choice indicating that B’s action constitutes an unreasonable defense is correct because it highlights the principle that the use of force must be reasonable and proportionate to the situation. In the context of tort law, particularly when discussing trespass and the right to defend one’s property, there are limitations on how far a property owner can go to protect their interests.

If B's response involves forcibly preventing A from landing—presumably at a dock owned or controlled by B—this action may go beyond reasonable measures of defense. In many jurisdictions, property owners are allowed to use reasonable force to protect their property, but the force must not be excessive or disproportionate. Simply forbidding someone from landing may not justify the use of force, especially if A has a legitimate purpose for approaching the dock.

In contrast, the other choices do not accurately capture the implications of B's response. The assertion of exclusive rights over the dock lacks the nuance of how those rights are exercised and balanced against the rights of others. Claiming damages for trespass would depend on whether A had committed a displacement or encroachment upon the property rights in a way that justified B's reaction. Finally, the notion that B must allow entry in emergencies does not align with property rights, as a