In many states, attractive harassment laws stem from common laws. Laws are not written down until a child is injured and makes a legal claim for compensation. Typically, attractive harassment laws develop over time as the courts rule on real-life cases. The doctrine of attractive harassment applies in some jurisdictions to tort law. It stipulates that a landowner can be held liable for injuries sustained by children entering the country if the injury is caused by an object on the land that may attract children. [1] The doctrine seeks to protect children who are unable to estimate the risk posed by the object by imposing liability on the landowner. [1] The doctrine has been used to hold landowners accountable for injuries caused by abandoned cars, piles of wood or sand, trampolines and swimming pools. However, it can be applied to virtually anything on the property. It`s in r.R. Co.
v. Stout, 84 U.S. 657 (U.S. 1874) that the doctrine was established. In this case, a child suffered an injury while playing on an unguarded and unlocked railway turntable. Although the court held the railway company that owned the turntable liable, it found that the defendant`s knowledge that children were playing on the turntable was sufficient to establish responsibility, even if the child was classified as an intruder. In general, most States have adopted either the doctrine itself or a variant of it [vii]. However, some states appear or have explicitly rejected the doctrine, and in those states, a landowner has no obligation not to intentionally or wilfully violate children`s accidents [viii]. Instead, these states use the doctrine of dangerous instrumentality, which does not require the element of attraction.
The duty of care of an owner usually depends on the status of the visitor. An owner or owner usually has the same or similar duty of care to guests and licensees. In the case of an intruder, he has only a lesser duty of care, since an owner or owner does not have an obligation to warn an intruder of the dangers that occur naturally on the premises. However, if an owner or owner is aware of the presence of an intruder, the owner or owner has a duty to warn that intruder of dangerous conditions on the property. In addition, according to the attractive HARASSMENT doctrine, an intruder may also be held to a higher duty of care, as explained below. If your child has been injured by an attractive nuisance, you should contact a personal injury lawyer immediately, as you may be able to get financial compensation for your child`s injury. Signs and warnings can be helpful and should be implemented. However, some children may not be old enough to read or understand the warning. In addition, some children perceive signs and warnings themselves as an attractive nuisance. The Property Liability Act requires owners to ensure the safety of every person who enters their property and to take all reasonable steps to do so.
As a legal term, it is usually associated with bodily injury when one person`s injury was caused by dangerous and/or erroneous conditions on another person`s property. In addition, an owner or resident of the property must use the premises in such a way that other owners and residents of the same municipality are not disturbed. Anything that disturbs or disturbs someone in the free use, possession or enjoyment of their property, or that makes their ordinary use or profession physically unpleasant, can become a nuisance. It is often the duty of the state to restrict such actions. Civil actions for harassment may be brought in some cases. The Private Harassment Act is based on the basic rule that everyone must use his or her own property in such a way as not to violate the property of others. If the owner of a property causes a nuisance by the use of the land, he is subject to liability. This is explored in more detail in our article on harassment. Since the classification of children as intruders, licensees or guests is not a determining factor in the application of the doctrine, several jurisdictions have applied the doctrine in situations where it has been difficult to determine a child`s status as a guest or licensee.
According to doctrine, the customary duty to an intruder child is different from that of an adult intruder. When it comes to an intruder, the duty of an owner is only to refrain from hurting a visitor through intentional or gratuitous behavior. Whereas in the case of trespassing, a landowner has an additional duty to exercise due diligence to avoid conduct that constitutes ordinary negligence[v]. The main reason for imposing additional care on invading children is the child`s inability to protect them from the danger that arises due to immaturity and lack of judgment. Therefore, the doctrine is applied only to a limited extent and only with caution. The doctrine is not applied in the following cases: The extent of a landowner`s obligation to inspect, repair or warn those who come to the field as beginners is determined by the examination of due diligence. Similarly, such a person entering the country must be subject to the same standard of care as a person who is reasonable in the circumstances existing at that time. The resident`s obligation is modified according to the intended use for which the land is used. The participant`s obligation to exercise due diligence for their own safety also varies depending on the circumstances in which they enter the country. However, a landowner is not required to maintain the land in a particular condition to promote the safety of intruders, unless the concept of attractive harassment, discussed below, applies. Gartley v. Chicago Housing Authority, 28 Ill.
App.3d 705 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1975). Each state has its own attractive harassment laws. Often, the laws of a state come from tradition and not from written law. Laws are not formally written until the court applies and passes a law. When laws evolve from the traditions of fairness and justice, they are called the common law. The basic elements of an attractive nuisance include: One of the most commonly used limitations to an owner`s liability is that the injured person was partly responsible for the incident.
A visitor is required to exercise reasonable care for his or her own safety. If such care is not properly exercised, the claimant`s recovery may be limited or reduced by his or her own negligence. Most states adhere to a system of comparative errors in cases of personal injury. According to the system of comparative errors, the legal prejudice of an aggrieved person is reduced by a percentage corresponding to his fault in the incident. For example, if it is decided that an injured person was 25% responsible for an accident and the total damage was $20,000, they will only receive $15,000. The owner of a premises is not an insurer of the safety of persons on the premises. An owner of a premises cannot be held liable for damage caused by the condition of his premises if there is no negligence or maintenance of any nuisance that caused the damage. The doctrine of attractive bullying requires owners to take steps to protect children, even if they are intruders. If there is an artificial structure on a plot, the owner must take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of children who may enter the property. Nevada`s attractive harassment laws can be found in Nevada`s revised law 41,515. Any of these elements could create a dangerous condition for children to trespass on any property.
If a landlord has not taken steps to secure the property and make it safe for children, even if they knew that children were attracted to the property for these reasons, the Attractive Bullying Act applies. If a child is injured due to an attractive nuisance, the owner may face legal liability to the child, similar to liability for premises in case of bodily injury. The child may have physical injuries that require treatment. An injured child may offer damages that can cover the financial costs associated with the child`s injuries, including medical expenses. The doctrine of attractive harassment applies only to artificial conditions. If a lake or river is naturally on a property, the owner is not required to protect the lake from the invasion of children. But when a homeowner builds a pool or installs a trampoline on their property, they have a duty to take steps to protect young children. The doctrine of seductive harassment arose from jurisdiction in England, beginning with Lynch v. Nurdin in 1841. In that case, a statement by Lord Chief Justice Thomas Denman concluded that the owner of a car left unattended on the road could be held responsible for injuries sustained by a child who got on the car and fell.
[3] The doctrine was first applied in the United States in Sioux City & Pacific Railroad Co. v. Stout, an 1873 nebraska case in which a railroad company was held responsible for the injuries of a child who climbed onto an unsecured railroad node. [4] The term “attractive nuisance” was first used in 1875 in Keffe v. Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co., a Minnesota case. [5] The doctrine has since been adopted in other common law jurisdictions, such as Canada,[6] but not in general. An attractive nuisance can be distinguished if it is some kind of dangerous artificial condition that exists on the property and is not so obvious to a child willing to interfere. The landowner is not responsible for obvious dangerous conditions on his property where a child can easily understand the dangerous condition.
In addition, a landowner is not responsible for hazardous natural conditions on the property such as lakes or ponds.
Comments are closed.