make contact with the occupant”. This presumption can be overcome only when a homeowner manifests a clear intent to prohibit all visitors from even approaching the house. We agree with the reasoning of these decisions, and we apply that reasoning to the present case. The Michels live in rural Alaska, and their residence lies some distance off the main highway, connected by a long driveway. Under these circumstances, a visitor to the Michels’ residence would reasonably conclude that the “No Trespassing” signs posted along the driveway were intended to deter people who might be tempted to leave the highway and use the Michels’ driveway as an access route for their own purposes (e.g., hunting, camping, hiking, or the like). Persons visiting the residence for social or commercia 3 (1984) (<HOLDING>). 7 . The Michels argue (1) that the state
holding a party failed to preserve an objection to the jury instructions where the party objected prior to the court instructing the jury but not after holding that no trespassing signs a cable blocking the driveway and a sign instructing visitors to honk before entering the property manifested an intent to exclude all visitors holding that defendant failed to plead sufficient facts and instructing the trial court to dismiss the plaintiff from the case holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony holding that instructing the jury on a legal duty theory when appellant had no legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense was error