Davis has a small trampoline in his backyard which, as he knows, is commonly used by neighbor children as well as his own. The trampoline is in good condition, is not defective in any way, and normally is surrounded by mats to prevent injury if a user should fall off. Prior to leaving with his family for the day, Davis leaned the trampoline up against the side of the house and placed the mats in the garage. While the Davis family was away, Philip, aged 11, a new boy in the neighborhood, wandered into Davis's yard and saw the trampoline. Philip had not previously been aware of its presence, but, having frequently used a trampoline before, he decided to set it up, and started to jump. He lost his balance on one jump and took a hard fall on the bare ground, jump and took a hard fall on the bare ground, suffering a serious injury that would have been prevented by the mats. An action has been brought against Davis on Philip's behalf to recover damages for the injuries Philip sustained from his fall. In this jurisdiction, the traditional common-law rules pertaining to contributory negligence have been replaced by a pure comparative negligence rule. In his action against Davis, will Philip prevail? 
No, if children likely to be attracted by the trampoline would normally realize the risk of using it without mats.  No, if Philip failed to exercise reasonable care commensurate with his age, intelligence, and experience.  No, because Philip entered Davis's yard and used the trampoline without Davis's permission.  No, because Philip did not know about the trampoline before entering Davis's yard and thus was not "lured" onto the premises. 