Injuries to Trespassers and Attractive Nuisance

Nuisances are things or situations that you want to avoid or stay away from. So how can you have a nuisance that is attractive—that is, a nuisance that actually draws you or people in general, to that nuisance?

Although attractive nuisance sounds like a contradiction, in law, it has a very specific meaning, and can impact premises liability cases in very significant ways, especially when the victims who are injured on the property were not supposed to be there, or they were complete trespassers to begin with.

When Trespassers are Injured

As a general rule, landowners don’t owe a duty of care to trespassers; other than to avoid intentionally injuring them or being completely reckless. A property owner need not warn trespassers of dangerous conditions, or fix dangerous conditions that may injure a trespasser. Saying a victim was a trespasser is, in fact, a very common defense in premises liability injury claims.

The Attractive Nuisance

But often, someone’s property may have features or qualities that draw others—even, technically trespassers—to the property.

Imagine, for example, an apartment complex with a pool.  There are a lot of kids in the surrounding area, and on a hot day, the kids (who don’t live in the apartment complex) use the community pool.

Those kids are technically trespassers. So does the landowner have to keep the pool area safe for them? Technically no, if they’re trespassers. But the pool is a feature—the “nuisance”—that attracts others to it, an attraction that the landowner knows about.

Imagine a store with a large parking lot that neighborhood kids skateboard on. While those kids are trespassing, nonetheless, the lot is an attraction to them, drawing them in, with the knowledge of the property owner.

When there is an attractive nuisance, a property owner does have to take precautions to keep property safe, and warn of dangerous conditions.

That makes the nuisance nuisance doctrine a powerful way to hold property owners liable for dangerous conditions that exist on their property—even if the victim technically was not supposed to or not allowed to be there.

The Nature of the Condition

As you can see, the condition need not, by itself, be dangerous—a pool or a parking lot isn’t inherently dangerous. It just has to be some feature that would tend to draw people (usually, children) to the property. Often, the “nuisance” is something that younger kids wouldn’t even know or recognize as being dangerous.

Attractive nuisance can vary depending on the age of the victim. To an older child, with greater awareness of what is or what is not dangerous, and a greater physical ability to keep safe, a pool, golf cart, or other draw, may not be an attractive nuisance, whereas to a younger child who may not appreciate the inherent potential dangers of these settings, they may be an attractive nuisance.

Property owners have an obligation to either fix the dangerous condition (if it’s something that is actually broken), or else, take measures to secure the property to keep trespassers away from whatever the nuisance is.

Whether you were supposed to be there or not, we can help if you were injured on someone else’s property. Schedule a consultation with our Tampa personal injury lawyers at Barbas, Nunez, Sanders, Butler & Hovsepian today for help after your accident.

Sources:

law.cornell.edu/wex/attractive_nuisance_doctrine

nationwide.com/lc/resources/home/articles/attractive-nuisances