Doyle

This appeal comes before the court upon hearing granted after decision by the District Court of Appeal, where the judgment was reversed. From the opinion of the District Conrt we quote as follows:

■ It is a general rule that the owner of property owes no duty to' mere trespassers to keep the property in safe condition. To this rule the law has declared an exception, in this, that where an attractive contrivance is maintained with the knowledge of the owner, alluring to children but inherently dangerous to them, this constitutes neglect out of which liability will arise for injuries resulting from such neglect. It is want of ordinary care to maintain such premises, and the question as to whether the device complained of eon-, stitutes a trap dangerous to children is a question of fact ordinarily to be determined by the jury. (Faylor v. Great Eastern etc. Co., 45 Cal. App. 194 [ 187 Pac. 101 ].) But it is not every contrivance or apparatus that a jury will be entitled to treat as an “attractive nuisance”. Before liability may be imposed, always there must be something in the evidence tending to show that the device was something of a new or uncommon nature with which children might…