
How Do Attractive Nuisance Laws Differ from Premises Liability?
Generally, a premises liability case is brought against a property owner who allows a dangerous or hazardous condition to exist on his or her property when a person who is lawfully on the property is injured by that dangerous or hazardous condition. The classic example of the premises liability case is that involving a shopper who slips and falls on a wet floor in the grocery store, injuring him- or herself. A successful premises liability case involves showing not only that a dangerous condition existed on the property that the owner should have known about and taken action regarding, but also showing that the injured person was lawfully permitted to be on the property.
Liability for an “attractive nuisance” is more stringent. An “attractive nuisance” is any artificial dangerous or hazardous item or condition on a person’s property that can attract children to trespass onto the property and suffer harm. While a swimming pool is a classic example of an attractive nuisance, ponds, streams, and even swing sets or jungle gyms can be considered attractive nuisances. A child who trespasses onto another’s property because of an attractive nuisance and who is injured by that attractive nuisance can be compensated for his or her injuries if:
- The place where the nuisance exists is a place where the landowner knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass (such as an unfenced pool area);
- The nuisance is one which the landowner knows or should have reason to know involves an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to a child;
- Children, because of their youth, are unlikely to realize the danger they are in by coming near the nuisance;
- The burden on the landowner of eliminating or mitigating the danger is slight compared to the danger presented to children; and
- The landowner fails to take reasonable measures to eliminate the danger or protect children.
How Can a Personal Injury Attorney Help?




