Principle: An occupier or owner of land owes a duty to warn a suspected trespasser of deadly conditions on the land which would be hidden to a trespasser, but of which the property owner is aware.
Factual Situation: Shiva, the owner of a Fire Cracker Factory owned a large plot of land, which he used for testing his crackers. One day while he was about to set fire to some special crackers, he noticed some children wandering on his land. Shiva did not pay any attention to the children as according to him they were trespassers. He set fire to the test crackers. One of the crackers which was supposed to ignite a series of crackers up in the sky at a height of 100 metres, did not burst in the sky. Instead, it fell to the ground and exploded, injuring one of the children. In a suit for compensation initiated by the parents of the injured child, how would you decide?

A. The child is not entitled to compensation as the child had a duty to take care

B. Shiva is not liable for payment of any compensation to a trespasser

C. Shiva is liable as he did not give any warning to the children about any danger

D. The child is not entitled to any compensation as the child is a trespasser

Answer: Option C