attractive nuisance doctrine


Also found in: Wikipedia.

attractive nuisance doctrine

n. a legal doctrine which makes a person negligent for leaving a piece of equipment or other condition on property which would be both attractive and dangerous to curious children. These have included tractors, unguarded swimming pools, open pits, and abandoned refrigerators. Liability could be placed on the people owning or controlling the premises even when the child was a trespasser who sneaked on the property. Basically the doctrine was intended to make people careful about what dangerous conditions they left untended. Some jurisdictions (including California) have abolished the attractive nuisance doctrine and replaced it with specific conditions (e.g. open pit and refrigerators) and would make property owners liable only by applying rules of foreseeable danger which make negligence harder to prove.

References in periodicals archive ?
But by the virtue of the attractive nuisance doctrine, the landowner's negligence is not excused by the child's status as a trespasser.
This article examines the attractive nuisance doctrine in the context of a simple economic model of torts.
The attractive nuisance doctrine is stated explicitly in Section 339 of the Second Restatement of Torts: (3)
Thus, when the attractive nuisance doctrine is accepted by the court, it changes the no-liability rule into the negligence rule.
In interpreting the attractive nuisance doctrine in the context of the model presented in the following section, condition (c) is key.
The attractive nuisance doctrine acts as a hybrid rule, applying a no-liability rule with accidents involving a low-cost child, and a negligence rule with accidents involving a high-cost child.
With due care positive for the low-cost child and the landowner but zero for the high-cost child, the attractive nuisance doctrine is efficient with respect to care.
If the attractive nuisance doctrine is applied in this setting to protect the high-cost child, the courts will find the landowner nonnegligent and therefore not liable.
Thus, the attractive nuisance doctrine may not provide the landowner with the incentive to take due care when (3) minimizes social loss.
Precisely why the attractive nuisance doctrine fails when (3) minimizes social loss can best be illustrated with a specific setting in which by choosing Care, the landowner can completely prevent an accident (i.
This statute is to have no effect on the attractive nuisance doctrine.
The attractive nuisance doctrine is frequently used for electrical hazards, as in the case where a judge held that the catwalk over a catenary wire on the outside of a fenced railroad bridge could be such an attractive nuisance.