Cited by

Co. 21 Minn. 207 , 18 Am.

Co. 21 Minn. 207 , 18 Am.

Co. 21 Minn. 207 , 18 Am.

Co. 21 Minn. 207 , 18 Am.

Co. 21 Minn. 207 , 18 Am.

Co. 21 Minn. 207 , 18 Am.

Co., 21 Minn. 207 ; Mattson v. Minnesota & N. W. R. Co., 95 Minn. 477 , ; Erickson v. Great Northern Ry.

Co. 21 Minn. 207 , where it was said that the owner of dangerous machinery, who leaves it in an open place, though on his own land, where he has reason to believe that young children will be attracted to it for purposes of play, is bound to exercise reasonable care for the protection of such children.

Co., 21 Minn. 207 , which was to the effect that the owner of dangerous machinery (a turntable), who leaves it unfastened or unguarded on his own land, where he has reason to believe that young children will be attracted to play with it, is bound to use due care to protect such children from the danger to which they are thus exposed.

Co., 21 Minn. 207 ; O’Malley v. St.

P. R. Co., 21 Minn. 207 , and Railroad Co. v. Stout, 17 Wall.

Co., 21 Minn. 207 ,) it was aptly said that a railway company is not required to make its land a safe playground for children, nor was it an insurer of the lives or limbs of young children who play about its premises.

Co., 21 Minn. 207 , and by the supreme court of the United States in what may be termed the pioneer “turn-table case,” (Railroad Co. v. Stout, 17 Wall.

Co., 21 Minn. 207 , is invoked by plaintiff in support of his position.