Sorry if this has been covered already, but it came up at work…
I know that you are civilly liable if you have a pool, for example, and a kid climbs over a 12 foot razor wire fence, goes into the pool and drowns.
(Most of what I learned about it was from the “Rockford Files” episode with the telescope on the roof of the trailer.)
What is the basis for this? Does it come from common law? Usually common law has more common sense invloved. At what point are your efforts “good enough.” Or, what can you do to your pool to protect you from attractive nuisance lawsuits?
To keep this out of GD, I am not asking whether the law should be this way, just why it is this way. Of course, juicy anecdotes would be good, too.
Do you not believe that this is the case? In the “Rockford” episode he had a telescope on the roof of his trailer and someone fell off the roof going up to look. Rockford was sued because this was an “Attractive Nuisance.”
It might be that a fence with a lock is sufficient to protect you, as in the pool example above, but I do not believe so.
As far as the OP goes, I can’t help - sorry. All I know about is what the Talmud has to say about this is the tractate of Babba Basra; probably not what you’re looking for.
Under New York law, at least, “attractive nuisance” doctrine, mostly discredited now, is extremely limited.
It only applies to injured children - I remember the “Rockford Files” episode, and the guy who climbed on the roof to look at the telescope was an adult - he had no case, at least in NY;
The child trespasser or intermeddler must be “enticed into harm’s way.” The attraction must be obvious and unprotected. Therefore, KeithB, in NY at least you are ** not ** civilly liable if you have the razor wire fence;
Even if you’re a kid, if you’re old enough to know better, you can’t go after someone under the attractive nuisance doctrine. I quickly searched and found a case of a 12-year killed “elevator surfing”, and a 13-year killed while playing in the subway tunnels of NYC. In the subway tunnel case, in particular, the court explicitly found that it didn’t matter whether the subway authority had posted warning signs or locks - kids in the city know the subway tunnels are dangerous.
Now, if you have an attractive nuisance that appears safe, even to a knowledgeable kid, and it turns out to be unsafe, you’re in trouble. A classic NY case involved a diving board into the Harlem River, on railroad property. As a kid was jumping in, the overhanging electrical wires collapsed, killing him. The case revolved around important, but arcane, issues of causation (was the kid on railroad property after he walked on the board over the river, etc.), but in the end, it was an attractive nuisance case.
Reminds me of that scenario about a burglar falling through a window in the roof of a house, and landing onto a knife or something sharp enough to severely injure him. He then sued the owner of that house for personal injury unto him, and won. I don’t know if that’s an urban legend, but if it’s true, the thought of something like that actually happening is quite disturbing, on the homeowner’s part.
Unless the knife was deliberately placed under the window in case a burglar fell through, your story is a UL. You cannot place man-traps on your property.
I’m not saying there aren’t some stupid decisions out there. One particularly annoying one is a case out of L.A. a few years ago. A cabbie, chasing down a purse snatcher, pinned the guy to a wall with his fender until the cops arrived. The guy injured his knee, sued the cabbied, and won. There, at least, the legal theory was sound (use the minimal force necessary), but the application was wrong.
[quote]
You cannot place man-traps on your property.
[quote]
Where does this come from? I think it sucks. Obviously, if you set a trap and someone innocent is injured or killed, then you should face consequences. But I heard of a story where this man’s barn was repeatedly broken into, and his farming equipment was stolen. He rigged up a shotgun to face the door, and blasted the shit out of the intruder next time he came around. The intruder died, and the farmer faced charges. Maybe an UL, maybe not. If that’s the way the law works, then the whole thing can lick my ass and call it ice cream. WTF shouldn’t someone be able to do that? And I don’t give a rat’s ass about the idea that “a human life is worth more than some farming equipment”. I say that a law abiding life is indeed worth more than a tractor, but if you’re a thief and in my house, I’ll smoke your ass even if you only came in to steal a piece of bread.
Oof, Sorry for the rant. My Question: Can anyone provide me with some background info on where the “no traps” law came from?
Under the Restatement, Second, of Torts, section 339, the elements needed for a condition to qualify as an “attractive nuisance” are:
And, yes, I believe the doctrine originated in the common law; in my (U.S.) jurisdiction, at least, it has never been separately codified as a statute and remains part of the body of the common law.
