I concurwith reluctance. In disposing of the issues presented by the appeal, Mr. Justice McOomb *781has with facile phraseology adhered to the prevailing rule in California that no duty devolves upon a licensor to apprise a licensee of the presence of a dangerous instrumentality in the licensor’s land about to be used by the licensee, of its proximity to the surface and of its inherent perils. The facts in the instant action argue eloquently that the better, wiser, more social, more humane rule to be that pronounced by the Restatement of the Law of Torts (vol. 2, p. 932, § 342) which in effect holds the possessor of land liable for bodily harm caused to a gratuitous licensee by a natural or artificial condition thereon, if such possessor knows of the condition, realizes that it involves an unreasonable risk to the licensee and has reason to believe that the latter will not discover the condition or realize the risk and still permits the licensee to enter or remain on the land without exercising reasonable care to remove the danger or to warn the licensee of the dangerous condition and of the risk involved.
The oil company had no valid excuse not to supply the gas company with a map of its concealed facilities and not to warn such licensee of the hidden perils. Its failure to do so is a matter of serious gravity.
A petition for a rehearing was denied March 30, 1954, and respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied May 6, 1954. Carter, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.