The Attractive Nuisance Doctrine

The attractive nuisance doctrine is sure to show up in your torts class, and also pretty certain to show up on the bar exam. Most understand that it deals with trespassing children, but there are some particulars that if you don't know well enough can trip you up on a question.

The policy behind the doctrine is important: it allows for liability in situations where liability would not otherwise be allowable.  Generally, it's difficult for a trespasser to sue for injuries caused by the landowner or possessor of property. But if the trespasser is a child, it might not be so difficult.

The attractive nuisance doctrine requires the following:

A possessor of land has a dangerous artificial condition on the land.

and

The place where the condition exists is one in which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass.

and

The possessor knows or has reason to know that the hazardous condition on the land involves a risk of death or serious bodily harm to any child who might trespass.

and

The children because of their age do not discover the dangerous condition or if they do discover it they do not appreciate the risk.

and

The benefit that the possessor receives from maintaining the condition as well as the burden that would be required to eliminate it are slight compared to the risk to children.

and

The possessor fails to exercise reasonable reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.

So, lots of elements. And note that this rule requires that all elements are satisfied for the doctrine to apply. For example, if it is determined that the child was able to appreciate the risk of harm then even if all other elements are satisfied, the doctrine will not apply.