I accept the point about not knowing whether damage is caused. However, the act does not state "suspect damage caused". So, again, we are back to whether a court would think her actions were reasonable given the circumstances. Which is tantamount to saying that it would never get to court as there was no obvious damage for her to see at the time, so she has no obligation to stop.
There are numerous stated cases on this and the majority seem to revolve around reason ability.
I accept the point about not knowing whether damage is caused. However, the act does not state "suspect damage caused". So, again, we are back to whether a court would think her actions were reasonable given the circumstances. Which is tantamount to saying that it would never get to court as there was no obvious damage for her to see at the time, so she has no obligation to stop.
There are numerous stated cases on this and the majority seem to revolve around reason ability.