Dogs and attractive nuisance

Of course things vary from state to state, but I am curious:

Does anyone know if dogs can be considered attractive nuisances? IOW, are those ‘electric fences’ that people have to keep dogs in an area without a physical barrier just asking for a lawsuit?

disclaimers: this is hypothetical, you are not my lawyer, heck you might not even be a lawyer, not valid in all states, void where prohibited, value 1/100th of one cent.

what would be the context? How would an electric fence invite a trespasser, and what would be the injury?

I’m assuming from the question that the dog would be the attractive nuisance, the invisible fence might be argued an insufficient barrier, and the injury would be, for instance, a dog-bitten child.

Sorry for not clarifying.

KneadToKnow’s got it. I’m wondering if the dog is the attractive nuisance and the invisible fence (being, ya know, invisible :wink: ) is a non-deterrent for someone who comes on the property. Not just a kid, but anyone: Salesman, Word-Spreader (of the denomination of your choice), Pollster, random kid, random drunk, etc. (I leave it to the reader to determine which is most likely to enter on a property in your neighborhood.)

Dogs being dogs, (and therefore territorial), I could easily see someone walking onto a property with said fence and dogs already outside getting bitten. But, especially for the kids (for whom, I assume, the Attractive Nuisance laws are written), are the dogs an attractant? (Is that even the right word?)

I think the issue isn’t that the “fence” would be an attraction itself, so much as the fact that it wouldn’t do anything to keep a human out of the yard with the dog. So you might, for instance, have a kid walking down the street, see a cute doggie in an unfenced yard, and rush into the yard to play with the doggie.

Missed the window:

I should also add, it’s this thread here: that’s making me think about the above question. no one’s mentioned it, but lots of folks are talking about their dogs scaring the crap outta someone. Got me thinking.

Can’t speak to other places, but in doing a little research on this, in North Carolina at least, young children are the only persons protected by the “attractive nuisance doctrine.” I’d linky but apparently the second time you try to go to a Findlaw page from Google it makes you log in.

Wouldn’t it be moot? Even if I invited someone on my property aren’t I responsible if my dog injures him? IOW, the attractive nuisance theory need not apply.

What about a fence that is scalable, like a four foot chain link fence? Or suppose someone just reaches over to pet the dog and gets bitten? Is there any situation aside from an intruder inside my house, or an unprovoked attack upon my person or the dog, where I am protected from suit or prosecution if my dog injures someone?

Actually, wouldn’t there be a large difference? In your scenario, you have given the victim permission to be there; in what I’ve presented (or whenever AN laws are used), the underlying assumption is that the victim does not have (at least tacit) permission to be present.

(Bolding mine) That is also a good question.

You’re right. My thinking was backward. I still think that if my dog bites you I am responsible unless he or I was threatened. I could very well be wrong. IANAL.

It’s my understanding that you can be found guilty of maintaining an attractive nuisance even if nobody has actually gotten hurt by it. So even if your dog doesn’t bite the kid, it could still be an attractive nuisance.