Can a company be held liable for injuries sustained to a young boy by a piece of metal which fell on top of him?

MEREDITH, C.J.O. (at the conclusion of the argument for the appellant):—The fatal difficulty in the way of the success of this appeal is that the jury have found that boys were not in the habit of frequenting the place where this boy was when he was injured. That seems to me to be conclusive against the appellant. The only ground upon which the respondent company could be made liable would be upon the application of the principle of such a case as Cooke v. Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland, [1909] A.C. 229, where on the premises of a person there is something which is dangerous to children who resort there to play, and it is known to the person that children do resort there. That doctrine has, in my judgment, been pressed in that case to the utmost limit.