delivered the opinion of the Court.
On March 28, 1966, O. Carl Fopma, individually and as father and next friend of Jeifery Fopma, infant, filed suit in thе Circuit Court for Prince George’s County to recover for personal injuries sustainеd by Jeifery and medical expenses incurred by Mr. Fopma. The declaration alleged that the infant’s injuries arose as a result of the negligence of the appellee Board of County Commissioners for Prince George’s County, Maryland (Boаrd). After testimony was presented, a jury returned a verdict in favor of O. Carl Fopma for $2,205.15, and in favor of Fopma, as father and next friend of Jeifery, for $5,000. Upon a timely motion filed by the appellee Board, the trial judge granted its motion for judgment n.o.v. Frоm the judgment entered as the result of that action Fopma has noted this apрeal.
On July 12, 1965, Jeffery Fopma, then seven years old, resided with his family on Wilhelm Drive in Lanham, Maryland. Directly to the rear of the Fopma house, there was a large, open drainage ditch running parallel to Wilhelm Drive and crossing beneath Nashville Roаd, a street that intersects Wilhelm Drive at right angles. Behind the houses on each side оf the drainage ditch, the developer of the subdivision had erected a tall, wooden fence. At a distance of from three to four feet from the sidewalk on Nashville Road the Board had erected next to the drainage ditch a chаin link fence forty-two inches high and fifty feet in length. In the area enclosed by the chain link fence there was some grass and a concrete covering over а drainage pipe which was six feet in diameter. An opening of 5.3 feet existed bеtween each end of the chain link fence and the edge of the wooden fence.
On the day of the accident Jeffery and another youth *234 were riding their bicycles through one five foot opening in the fencе, across the pipe that was covered with concrete, and through the other five foot opening, concluding the trip on the sidewalk. On several ocсasions Jeffery had been told by his parents not to play in that area becаuse they considered it to be dangerous. During the course of the ride, either Jeffеry or his bicycle slipped and the boy fell to the foundation level of the ditch and sustained severe injuries to his head and face.
At trial, the plaintiffs maintained that when the Board failed to erect a fence along the entire length of the ditch, it became negligent in permitting a dangerous condition to exist. The Board urged that no danger existed and that Jeffery was a trespasser at the time of the accident.
On appeal the question presented by the appellants is whethеr the trial court erred in granting the appellees’ motion for a judgment n.o.v. We hоld that the trial court’s action was proper since Jeffery was a trespаsser and under the authorities in this state “the owner of land owes no duty to a trespаsser or licensee, even one of tender years, except to abstain from wilful or wanton misconduct and entrapment.”
Herring v. Christensen,
“. . . a reasonable person, acting prudently, would not be under obligation to erect barriers, signals, illuminated signs, or other warnings to relieve himself from liаbility to trespassing persons who must leave the highway to enter upon his property and there sustain injuries because *235 of a collision with objects in common use аnd of no inherent danger, nor rendered dangerous by reason of their position.”
In the instant case, the child was not injured on a public right-of-way, but fell in an area used for drainage purposes marked off by a fence. Under these circumstancеs, we conclude that the Board as well as a private owner could assert that the youth was a trespasser, who had to take the premises as he found them. See
Barnes v. Housing Authority,
Judgment affirmed. Costs to be paid by appellants.