What is the outcome for a defendant if their interference in private necessity benefits the landowner?

In the context of private necessity, if a defendant's interference leads to a benefit for the landowner, the defendant is essentially exempt from all liability. This concept is grounded in the idea that when an individual acts to preserve their own safety or property, and in doing so inadvertently benefits another's property, their actions can be justified under the legal doctrine of necessity.

Private necessity provides a privilege for a party to interfere with another’s property when it is necessary to prevent greater harm to themselves or others. If this interference results in a benefit to the landowner, the law recognizes that the intervening party's actions were not only justified but also advantageous; therefore, they should not be liable for damages that might otherwise arise from that interference. This legal framework emphasizes the balance between personal rights and the rights of others, where the necessity for self-preservation or protection takes precedence.

Thus, in this scenario, since the defendant’s interference ultimately benefits the landowner, they are exempt from liability, reinforcing the principle that necessity can provide a valid defense against claims of trespass or other forms of property damage.