to recover. There is ample authority for the position we have taken.... At [2 Harper & James, Torts § 27.5.] page 1455, note 57 [it is said]: The question of the child’s contributory negligence is a separate problem which must be carefully distinguished from that of the land occupier’s duty.... Unfortunately the issues are often confused. Where contributory negligence bars recovery anyway, the confusion does not affect the result. But in cases in which the plaintiff may not be contributorily negligent, it would be important to keep the issues distinct. [Pocholec v. Giustina, 224 Or. 245, 355 P.2d 1104, 1108-09 (Or.1960) (quoting 2 Harper & James, Torts, § 27.5, at 1455 n.57 (1956)).] See also Colls v. City of Chicago, 212 Ill.App.3d 904, 156 Ill.Dec. 971, 571 N.E.2d 951, 978 (1991) (<HOLDING>). A court instructing a jury should explain
holding state is not a proper defendant under  1983 holding that denial of remand was proper where plaintiff failed to raise the proper objection holding that to charge compara tive negligence in trespassingchild case is proper holding in a similar case that certiorari was the proper vehicle for review holding venue proper where proper when the action was commenced