You do what you can to keep your kids safe from any dangers that Pottsville’s local environment might throw at them. When they are not with you, you likely trust in the good judgment you have helped instill in them. Beyond that, you hope that the area’s property owners have done what they can to protect your children from whatever risks the features found on their lands may pose.
Sadly, as many of those who have come to us here at our law firm can attest to, property owners do not always meet that expectation. If your child suffers an injury on another’s property, you may want to know to what extent the property owner is liable.
Injuries due to an attractive nuisance
The answer depends on the circumstances of the injury. If an artificial feature (such as a swimming pool, playground equipment or abandoned structure) causes it, the attractive nuisance doctrine may come in to play.
Per the Cornell Law School, this legal principle places responsibility on property owners to protect children (particularly young children) from the attractive features on their properties that could cause them harm. The logic underlying this philosophy is that young children lack the comprehension needed to determine when the risk a feature poses outweighs its attraction, and thus adults need to look out for them.
Exceptions to the attractive nuisance doctrine
Yet the attractive nuisance doctrine may not apply to every injury suffered in another’s swimming pool or on a playground. If the property owner takes measures to restrict access to it (such as erecting a fence or barrier around it), he or she may avoid liability.
You can discover more about assigning liability for injuries by continuing to browse through our site.