Attractive Nuisance Doctrine/ Children Hurt On Another’s Property
What is Attractive Nuisance Doctrine
Since children are curious by nature, they are vulnerable to many dangers in and around their environment. Although their parents are their natural guardians, that does not mean that they will always be protected from hazardous situations. Despite this, it is practically impossible for parents to watch over their children all the time. In keeping with this, the city of New York follows the doctrine of Attractive Nuisance. According to this doctrine, the landlord is liable for any injury to the child caused by any object that attracts a child’s attention. Swimming pools, cars, piles of sand, etc. can all be subjected to the doctrine, but the courts have a very special role to play in this case. For the court to apply the doctrine, they must determine if the plaintiff understood the hazard or not. If the court determines that the plaintiff did not understand the hazard, then the doctrine does not apply.
Trespassers are given very little protection under Tort law if they try to trespass on someone else’s property. However, the law recognizes the mental limitations of children who are not in a position to understand the consequences of their actions. Landowners are therefore responsible for making sure that children aren’t attracted to these artificial things that can cause harm.
ESSENTIALS FOR SUCCESSFUL APPLICABILITY OF THE DOCTRINE
If the following conditions are met, then the doctrine becomes applicable and you may be able to recovery money on your child’s behalf.
1) The child’s injury must have been caused by an artificial and not natural danger occurring on the landowner’s property that is likely to attract children who may not be in a position to anticipate the risks.
2) The landowner could have foreseen or probably must have foreseen that the property was unsafe, which could have attracted the child.
3) The age of the child is such that he or she is not able to anticipate the danger.
4) The benefit of keeping the property in the landlord’s premises is less as compared to the injury it can cause to the child.
5) The landlord was not able to take reasonable care of the property in question.
COMMON ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE PLACES
Below are some places where children are likely to suffer injuries. Thus, you should be cautious when visiting or letting your children enter these places.
1) WATER – Children are often drawn to the water and therefore are at risk of drowning since they do not comprehend the depth of the pool. If an accident occurs in a pool, the pool owner may be liable even if he or she did not consent to it. For pool owners, it is important to create a wall around the pool area, preferably a fence, and put a danger alert along with an alarm, in case anyone tries to enter without permission. Furthermore, it is not advisable to keep fancy pool objects close to the pool area as they might be an object of attraction.
2) PLAYGROUNDS – Playgrounds are typically designed for children only, so they are more likely to get hurt there. If they are not used properly, swings can be just as dangerous as they are attractive. Several things can be done to minimize the risk at the very least, such as keeping toddler swings separate from the big swings and keeping swings at least 24 inches apart. Once the swing ride is over, there must be enough speed breakers that reduce the speed dramatically. Shock absorbers are also required for adequate safety.
3) CONSTRUCTION SITES – These are notorious for attracting children. Construction sites that attract children to them, expose them to physical injuries and more dangerous injuries such as getting electrocuted. Debris keeps piling up on construction sites, and children use that debris as a ladder to sit and lie down, which is dangerous. To prevent children from visiting construction sites, all construction sites must erect a temporary wall outside their premises. Moreover, all debris should be collected after each day and disposed of in a faraway place. In addition, raw materials such as bricks, cement, and other things must be centralized instead of scattered.
4) WEAPONS – Although parents warn children not to touch weapons, children continue to do it. A person who keeps weapons at his or her home has an extra duty to keep them out of sight of children. Guns are the most commonly owned weapons in the United States. It is the responsibility of the owner to keep the firearm unloaded and to keep the ammunition in a separate location.
5) Trampolines – very common now-a-days are trampolines. These are seen quite often in child injury cases. A landowner should have a fence around his property to not allow children easy access to their property and even further, a landowner should put a net around the trampoline itself. However, even with both of those safety precautions a child may still get hurt and property owner still be responsible.
LEADING CASES ON ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE DOCTRINE
It is very important to look into some of the important precedents that throw some light on the concept of Attractive Nuisance Doctrine and how have the courts in the United States applied the doctrine keeping in mind different factual matrices. The first case that received wide recognition in the United States was Sioux City & Pacific Railroad Co. v. Stout. In the Stout case, decided in 1873, the plaintiff, a child of six, was injured when playing with other boys upon an unguarded and unlocked turntable on the property of the defendant railroad. The Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for the plaintiff despite the fact that the child was a trespasser, holding the defendant guilty of negligence in not properly guarding or fastening the turntable. The side effect of Stout’s case was that the premise holder was made liable for not taking due care of his property which he had known to be inherently dangerous to children of tender age. However, in another case of United Zinc and Chemical Co. v. Britt children were trespassing upon the defendant’s land and, after they were on the land, were attracted to a pool of water apparently pure but actually poisoned by chemicals. The children attempted to swim in the pool and were killed by the effects of the poison. While it would seem that recovery should have been available on the theory that the pool was a trap, however, the recovery was denied. Justice Holmes argued that the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine is not applicable where the children were not induced to trespass by the object causing injury. However, the Courts over time have tried to adopt a liberal interpretation and therefore rigid considerations of instrumentalities and conditions as falling within or beyond the scope of the attractive nuisance doctrine is not the most realistic solution to the problem.
CONCLUSION
In the two cases mentioned above, we saw how the attractive nuisance doctrine was applied in two different ways. This raises the question of how we can determine if an object is dangerous to all children or just a particular child. Which situation should the court consider when making its decision? That is the crux of the issue. It also ignores the traditional notion of tortious liability that is applicable to trespassing. However, the evolution of this principle marks a huge victory for humane principles over harsh treatment by the common law system. Therefore, it is right to say that no matter what interpretations one may have about this doctrine, one should never lose sight of the fundamental understanding of it.