Final answer:
True, infant trespassers come within an exception of the standard duty of care owed by an owner or occupier of land to a trespasser for an artificial condition due to the 'attractive nuisance doctrine'.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement provided is True. Infant trespassers are an exception to the standard duty of care owed by an owner or occupier of land to a trespasser for an artificial condition. In general, a landowner or occupier is not required to take measures to prevent harm to trespassers. However, when it comes to infant trespassers, there is a higher duty of care owed due to their inability to appreciate certain dangers. This is known as the 'attractive nuisance doctrine'.
The 'attractive nuisance doctrine' states that if an owner or occupier creates or maintains a dangerous condition on their property that is likely to attract young children, they have a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm. This includes taking measures to warn or protect children from the dangers created by artificial conditions, such as the presence of hazardous materials or machinery.
In the given counter example situation, Susan, the babysitter, had a duty of care to ensure the safety of the children. She was aware of the dangerous materials in the ballroom and warned the children about the potential hazards. However, her failure to adequately supervise the children and prevent them from accessing the dangerous materials could be considered a breach of her duty and make her partly responsible for the harm that occurred.