Cited by

“While the owner of premises may owe more duty to a child than to an adult coming upon his premises * * *, yet he is not bound to guard every stairway, cellar-way, retaining wall, shed, tree and open window on his premises * * Kayser v. Undell, 73 Minn. 123, 126 , 75 N.W.

The *492 rule was stated by this court in Kayser v. Lindell, 73 Minn. 123 , , where the 3 Vi-year-old child of a tenant fell off a retaining wall in the rear of the yard maintained by the landlord for the common use of tenants.

ial court that “To require one to use that care which an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under the same *507 or similar circumstances can hardly be onerous, unreasonable or oppressive.” The following Minnesota authorities may be referred to in support of defendants’ position: Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520 , ; Tvedt v. Wheeler, 70 Minn. 161 , ; Kayser v. Lindell, 73 Minn. 123 , ; Farley v. Byers, 106 Minn. 260 , ; Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521 , ; Daley v. Towne, 127 Minn. 231 , ; Keeg

there any evidence of notice to the owner that children ever went on the roof of the building.” In Meagher v. Hirt, 232 Minn. 336, 340 , 45 N. W. (2d) 563, 565 , we said: “* * * jje [the defendant] can only be held liable for negligence if there was a foreseeable risk of injury to children * * In Ewing v. George Benz & Sons, supra, we quoted with approval the following from Kayser v. Lindell, 73 Minn. 123, 126 , , 1039: “* * * While the owner of premises may owe more duty to a child than to

Bather, it ap-j *515 pears to come within the scope of Kayser v. Lindell, 73 Minn. 123 , .

Johnson v. Ramberg, 49 Minn. 341 , ; Ryder v. Kinsey, 62 Minn. 85 , , 34 L. R. A. 557, 54 A. S. R. 623; Kayser v. Lindell, 73 Minn. 123 , ; Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , ; Strunk v. Wells Brothers Co. 120 Minn. 77 , ; Mazey v. Loveland, 133 Minn. 210 , , L. R. A. 1916F, 279; O’Keefe v. Dietz, 142 Minn. 445 , .

Harpel v. Fall, 63 Minn. 520 , ; Tvedt v. Wheeler, 70 Minn. 161 , ; Kayser v. Lindell, 73 Minn. 123 , ; Barron v. Liedloff, 95 Minn. 474 , ; Farley v. Byers, 106 Minn. 260 , , 130 A. S. R. 613; Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521 , ; Daley v. Towne, 127 Minn. 231 , ; Keegan vG.

1062 ; Kayser v. Lindell, 73 Minn. 123 , 75 N.W.

In Kayser v. Lindell, 73 Minn. 123 , , it was held that this doctrine did not apply to a case where a 31,-year old child climbed upon a retaining wall and was injured by falling therefrom.

597 ; Kayser v. Lindell, 73 Minn. 123 , ; Erickson v. Great Northern Ry.

Kayser v. Lindell, 73 Minn. 123 , ; 24 Cyc.

Kayser v. Lindell, 73 Minn. 123 , .