Frank L. Magar, Respondent v. Stoddard Hammond, Appellants

Summary

The Court reversed the lower courts and ordered a new trial, holding that the owner of a fish preserve and his watchman owe no duty to a trespassing poacher except to refrain from willful, wanton, or reckless injury. Liability attaches only if the watchman's act was willful, reckless, or wanton and within the scope of his employment, and the plaintiff's contributory negligence is immaterial because no negligence liability exists.