A group of children, ranging in age from 8 to 15, regularly played football on the common area of an apartment complex owned by
O'Neill. Most of the children lived in the apartment complex, but some lived elsewhere. O'Neill knew that the children played on the common area and had not objected. Peter, a 13-year-old who did not live in the apartment complex, fell over a sprinkler head while running for a pass and broke his leg. Although Peter had played football on the common area before, he had never noticed the sprinkler heads, which protruded one inch above ground and were part of a permanently installed underground sprinkler system.
If a claim is asserted on Peter's behalf, Peter will
A) prevail if the sprinkler head was a hazard that Peter probably would not discover.
B) prevail, because O'Neill had not objected to children playing on the common area.
C) not prevail, because Peter did not live in the apartment complex.
D) not prevail unless the sprinkler heads were abnormally dangerous to users of the common area.
Answer:A) prevail if the sprinkler head was a hazard that Peter probably would not discover.
Explanation:if the sprinklers are installed in a way that there is no chance that a person can see them , then a person can't be in the wrong because there is no chance he would have seen them unless they were told or there was a sign.
