rephrase and shorten the following section: Yes. If property contains a dangerous condition and the property owner knows, or has good reason to believe, that young children will enter the property, then the property owner has a duty to take the measures that an ordinary person would take to prevent the children from entering the property or to protect them from injury while on the property. The failure to comply with that duty leaves the property owner subject to negligence liability for injuries sustained. Young children are often unable to discern the danger that a dangerous condition poses to their safety. Consequently, a property owner owes a duty to protect young children even if such children are trespassers. The rule is not unduly burdensome, because negligence liability applies only if the property owner fails to take protective measures that an ordinary man would take under the circumstances. When determining what protective measures an ordinary man would take, relevant considerations include the property's nature and location, the property's purpose and use, the probability of injury, the precautions necessary to prevent injury, and the impact that the precautions would have on the property's beneficial use. Here, the railroad's rules required the turntable to be locked when not in use, showing that the railroad knew the turntable was dangerous. However, the railroad also knew that employees often disregarded this rule and that neighborhood children of all ages regu