The doctrine applies where a possessor knows children are likely to trespass, an artificial condition poses unreasonable risk of serious harm, children may not appreciate the danger due to youth, and the burden of eliminating it is slight relative to the risk.
Swimming pools, construction sites, and machinery are common contexts.
Alternative Names:
Attractive Nuisance Doctrine, Child Trespasser Doctrine
Why it Matters?
The doctrine is one of the few paths to liability for injuries to trespassers, and it turns on whether children were known or should have been anticipated on the property. Prior incidents of children entering, worn paths, and neighborhood proximity establish that element. The burden element also matters, since a condition remediable with inexpensive fencing is treated differently than one requiring substantial expenditure.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
What conditions trigger the doctrine?
What establishes anticipated child trespass?
