Does the absence of an invitation or licence or licence to enter the cemetery by climbing the fence of a private cemetery for a male plaintiff cause the male plaintiff injury?

The absence of an invitation or licence to enter the cemetery by climbing the fence does not, of course, relieve the defendants of all duty to the male plaintiff. The defendants would still have been under a duty "to treat him with ordinary humanity": per Dickson J. (as he then was) in Veinot v. Kerr-Addison Mines Ltd., supra, at p. 554 D.L.R., p. 322 S.C.R. In that case the plaintiff, riding his snowmobile on the defendant's land, struck a pipe forming part of a gate across a roadway. There was evidence that there was a great deal of snowmobiling done in the area and that there were many tracks on the road leading to the ploughed road on which the accident occurred. The ploughed road seemed to be well travelled and looked like a public road. At trial a jury found that [at p. 553 D.L.R.]: (a) the plaintiff was on the defendant's land with implied permission; (b) the pipe constituted a concealed or hidden danger; and (c) the defendant had failed to take reasonable care to avoid injury to persons traversing the area.