The Attractive Nuisance Doctrine is a premises liability rule of common law in the United States that has developed as a way to hold land owners responsible for maintaining dangerous conditions upon their property that are likely to attract children who are unable to appreciate the danger. Some common examples of conditions that the doctrine has been applied to are: unprotected swimming pools, lakes, trampolines, piles of sand or debris, old cars, or defect play structures. Dangerous domestic animals are another possible use of this doctrine.
Under typical premises liability law, the duty a landowner owes to a trespasser is less than that owed to an invitee–a person invited onto the premises for the owner’s mutual benefit. The Attractive Nuisance Doctrine counteracts this burden to deter land owners from keeping unprotected conditions on their property that they should realize will attract kids.
Although there may be variances from state-to-state, in order for the doctrine to apply the following elements generally must be met:
1) The place where the condition exists is one where the land owner or occupier knows or should know children are likely to trespass;
2) The condition is one that the owner or occupier knows or has reason to know involves an unreasonable risk of injury to the children;
3) The children, due to their youthfulness do not appreciate the danger;
4) The utility of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating or reducing the risk is slight in comparison to the risk involved to the children;
5) The land owner or possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect the children.
Generally, the Courts look to the age and mental ability of the individual child in question to determine if the child is able to appreciate the danger and whether any steps taken by the land owner to prevent the harm were reasonable. For example, a “dangerous undertow – do not swim sign” may be sufficient to warn a a teenager, but a not a three-year-old. Thus, the land owner must take into account the age and understanding of the potential trespasser.
Good morning Keep up with the excellent posts. Thanks you very much
Thank you. I was looking into how an attractive nuisance doctrine could be a applied to a neighborhood soccer field on un-enclosed private land. I found how it can apply if a large goal tips over and crushes a bone, but I am curious to know if there is a serious risk if the field is left unattended, and children or teenagers come to play, and for whatever reason in the course of their games one were to run into a goal post and suffer injury as a result. Presume that the goals are impeccably built, anchored to the ground, and maintained. The injury is a result of the game played and occurred by decisions the minor made during the play of game, and could have occurred anywhere that this common game is played. Could I face liability for not chasing away every kid that wants to play on my soccer field? Any thoughts?
What I have found so far are instances where the doctrine applied because of unanchored goals, or structurally unsound goals that were “home-made” by welding metal pipes together.
I have not researched that specific issue. But the attractive nuisance doctrine is based upon a failure to warn of dangers a child cannot appreciate. If it applies, all it does is raise the duty owed from a duty not to intentionally harm (duty to a trespasser) to a duty warn of an unreasonably dangerous condition that the owner knows of our should know of and of which the injured person has no knowledge. Convincing a jury that a well-constructed goal is an unreasonably dangerous condition and that the owner should have known that would be difficult unless there have been alot of kids run into that particular post making it somehow abnormal…just my two cents.