Baumgart v. Spierings

The defendants contend that the judgment must be reversed: First, because the child was a trespasser and there is no evidence of wilful and intentional injury; and second, because the defendant, on the undisputed evidence, fully discharged his duty as outlined under the decisions of this court even if the child were a licensee. To determine the issues will require a brief summary of the facts as revealed by the record.

For approximately fifteen months prior to the date of the accident the plaintiffs and the defendant were owners of adjoining tracts of land. Upon the tract of land owned by the…