---
title: "Attractive Nuisance Doctrine"
type: Legal Rule
source: https://casebriefly.com/legal-rules/attractive-nuisance-doctrine
---

# Attractive Nuisance Doctrine

A landowner may owe a duty of care to trespassing children if the landowner maintains a condition on the property that is likely to attract children who cannot appreciate the danger it poses.

## Definition

The attractive nuisance doctrine is an exception to the general rule that landowners owe no duty of care to trespassers. Under this doctrine, a landowner or possessor of land may be liable for injuries to trespassing children caused by an artificial condition on the land if the landowner knew or should have known that children were likely to trespass, the condition poses an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death to children, and children because of their youth would not appreciate the danger.

The doctrine, codified in section 339 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, reflects the policy judgment that children deserve special protection because they lack the maturity and judgment to appreciate certain risks. The name derives from early cases involving conditions that literally attracted children, such as railroad turntables. Modern courts no longer require that the condition actually attracted the child to the property — it is sufficient that the condition posed a risk to children who might foreseeably trespass.

The doctrine requires a balancing of the burden on the landowner in eliminating the danger against the risk to children. If the cost of safeguarding the condition is slight compared to the risk, liability is more likely. Common examples include unfenced swimming pools, abandoned vehicles, construction sites, and uncovered wells. The doctrine does not apply to natural conditions (such as ponds or cliffs) or to common conditions that even young children are expected to appreciate (such as fire or falling from a height). Most jurisdictions recognize some form of this doctrine either through case law or statute.

## Elements

- The landowner knew or should have known that children were likely to trespass in the area
- The condition on the land posed an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to children
- The children, because of their youth, did not discover or appreciate the risk
- The utility to the landowner of maintaining the condition was slight compared to the risk to children
- The landowner failed to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or protect the children
- The condition was an artificial (not natural) condition on the land

## Key Case

Sioux City & Pacific R.R. Co. v. Stout, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 657 (1873)

## Landmark Cases

| Name | Citation | Significance |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Sioux City & Pacific R.R. Co. v. Stout | 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 657 (1873) | One of the earliest cases establishing the attractive nuisance doctrine, involving a child injured by a railroad turntable. |
| United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. Britt | 258 U.S. 268 (1922) | Justice Holmes limited the doctrine, requiring that the dangerous condition must have been what attracted the children to the property. |
| Bennett v. Stanley | 92 Ohio St.3d 35 (2001) | Applied the attractive nuisance doctrine to a residential swimming pool, holding the homeowner owed a duty to trespassing children. |

## Exam Tips

- Check all five elements of Restatement section 339 — missing even one defeats the claim.
- The doctrine applies only to artificial conditions, not natural ones like ponds, hills, or trees.
- The child's age is critical — older children who can appreciate the danger may not qualify.
- Balance the burden on the landowner versus the risk to children — if fixing the danger is cheap, liability is likely.

## Common Mistakes

- Assuming the condition must literally attract the child to the land — modern law requires only that the condition pose a foreseeable risk to trespassing children.
- Applying the doctrine to natural conditions — it applies only to artificial conditions maintained on the land.
- Forgetting the age limitation — the doctrine protects children too young to appreciate the risk, not teenagers who understand the danger.

## Mnemonic Or Memory Aid

Kids CANNOT appreciate risk: Condition is artificial, Nuisance known, NOT appreciated by children, Owner can fix it cheaply, Trespass is foreseeable.

## Related Rules

- premises-liability
- duty-of-care-general
- reasonable-person-standard

---
Source: [Attractive Nuisance Doctrine — CaseBriefly](https://casebriefly.com/legal-rules/attractive-nuisance-doctrine)