Court Opinion

ID: 9444942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:16:34.331848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:04.589138
License: Public Domain

CAMERON, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
*183Basic in the findings of the Court below, now embraced by the majority, is the idea that a landowner is under duty to guard his premises against the intrusion of trespassers. If one should enter despite the owner’s vigilance, his safety is virtually insured by the owner, — especially if he is drunk. In my opinion, the authorities cited do not cast private property upon so precarious a base. Nor do they place such a premium upon ine-briety. Finding no support for the result either in law or in morals, I am impelled to dissent.
Rehearing denied: CAMERON, C. J., dissenting.