Plаintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries which she suffered in being mired in an oil sump оn property in the possession of defendant. The appeal is from a judgment in plaintiff’s favor in the sum оf $500.
On the afternoon of April 6, 1940, plaintiff, a girl thirteen years of age, was walking with her two sisters, aged eleven аnd fifteen years, and a boy, aged fifteen years, along the highway about one mile from her home at Niрomo, California. Her dog ran loose in front of the group. About 20 or 30 feet from the paved highway oil and tar had accumulated on defendant’s property in a hole about 250 feet long and about 100 feet wide. The sump was separated from the highway by a low embankment. Various witnesses described the apрearance of the surface of the oil. Plaintiff described it as “just black with dirt and I could not tell what it was”. Shе also stated that it was “like a big round hole and it was black and it had sand over it”. One of the plaintiff’s witnesses tеstified that the sump “looked brown”, and another testified that it was “covered with sand and it had black streaks in it”. No signs were placed on the premises giving notice of the dangerous condition of the sump.
As plaintiff walked on the highway by the sump she noticed that her dog was barking and trying to extricate itself from the sump. She cаlled but the dog could not come to her. She and the other children remained on the bank of the sump аbout five minutes and then she started into the sump to rescue the dog. Plaintiff was able to walk about ten steрs on the surface but she then suddenly mired down at a distance of about 30 feet from the dog. Both of her feеt became stuck in the oil and tar and she fell on her right side. She was not rescued for several hours and during this рeriod oil covered her body with the exception of her left arm and head. The boy who was accompanying plaintiff attempted to rescue her and he in turn became mired in the oil.
Defendant argues that the sump was not an “attractive nuisance”, and that since plaintiff was a trespasser defеndant was under no obligation to plaintiff to keep the premises in a safe condition. Although the trial сourt found that defendant “knew that it (the sump) was attractive to
*852
children”, the liability of defendant need not be predicated upon the attractive nuisance doctrine. The conclusion of the trial cоurt may be sustained under the general rule that a landowner may not construct or maintain a trap or рitfall into which he knows or has reason to believe that a trespasser will probably fall. The liability of thе owner in such cases depends upon the circumstances surrounding the maintenance of the “trap”, the extent of the danger involved and the comparative ease or difficulty of preventing the dаnger without disturbing or impairing the usefulness of the thing which is claimed to be a trap or pitfall. Upon the trial judge the duty is placed of determining the issue of liability in view of all of the conditions shown by the evidence. In suppоrt of plaintiff’s contention that the trial court was justified in concluding that defendant is liable plaintiff proрerly cites the ease of
Malloy
v.
Hibernia Sav. & Loan Soc.,
In her answer defendant pleaded as an affirmative defense that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligеnce. The trial court made no finding on this issue, and its failure to do so requires a reversal of the judgment. It has frеquently been held that a failure to find on the issue of contributory negligence, when pleaded, is reversible error.
(Woodworth
v.
Morgan,
4 Cal. App. (2d) 488 [
We cannot agree with defendant's contention that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligencе as a matter of law. Only thirteen years old, she had lived in several
*853
states, in California but three months and in the nеighborhood of Nipomo about one month before the accident. She had never seen this pаrticular sump or any other oil sump, did not know what was holding the dog and did not know what she was stepping into. In considering whether plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence the court, of course, should take into considеration the fact that she was of tender years and the fact that she was endeavoring to rescuе her dog. It was not contributory negligence as a matter of law for plaintiff to attempt to rescuе the dog, even if she knew that she was taking a risk in doing so, unless the risk was wanton or unreasonable. Whether her аct in attempting to rescue the dog was wanton or unreasonable was a question to be determined by the trial court.
(Henshaw
v.
Belyea,
The judgment is reversed.
MeComb, J., concurred.