A dangerous part of someone’s property may qualify as an attractive nuisance. This is an acknowledgment that there is an inherent danger and that the specific part of the property may be attractive to children, who could then be injured.
A common example of this is a backyard pool. If someone on a cul-de-sac puts in a pool behind their house, it may be an attractive nuisance because it could draw other neighborhood children and because there’s a risk that they could be injured or even pass away in a drowning incident.
Who would be liable?
What the attractive nuisance doctrine says is essentially that homeowners can be liable if they do not take enough steps to reduce the danger. To stick with the example of a backyard pool, homeowners often have to put up a fence with a gate that automatically locks. If they fail to do so, and a child falls into the pool, they could still be liable—even though they may say that the child had no right to be on the property and was never invited.
After all, this doctrine is often used in reference to small children. They don’t understand property lines or property rights. They can’t necessarily read warning signs or “no trespassing” signs. This is why homeowners can still be liable even though they may claim they put up a sign telling children to stay away from the pool. They actually need to put up a gate so that neighborhood children are truly safe.
If your child has been injured or passed away due to an attractive nuisance, you may be able to seek compensation from the property owner, so take the time to look into all of your legal options.
