Facebook Twitter LinkedIn iPhone App Android App Blog
Pennsylvania Office:

ph: 610-667-7511
fax: 610-667-3440
555 City Line Avenue
Suite 500
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
map to office >>

Harrisburg Office:

ph: 717-238-0220
107 N. Front Street
Suite 117
Harrisburg, PA 17101
map to office >>

Philadelphia Office:

ph: 215-238-1130
fax: 215-238-1132
1800 JFK Boulevard, Suite 300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
map to office >>

New Jersey Office:

ph: 856-667-7515
fax: 856-667-8666
385 Kings Highway North
Suite 210
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
map to office >>

New York Office:

ph: 800-690-9315
11 Broadway
Suite 615
New York, NY 10004
map to office >>

Upstate New York Office:

ph: 800-690-9315
397 route 281
P.O. Box 430
Tully, NY 13159-0430
map to office >>

Attractive Nuisances

The “attractive nuisance” doctrine is a legal concept that holds property owners liable if they have a structure on their property that may attract children who do not comprehend the risks associated with that structure. The most common example of this concept is when a property owner has a pool on their property that is not properly secured; children may be enticed to play in the pool and be harmed as a result. This is the reason most swimming pools in public areas are locked and have fences which are difficult to climb. In most cases, five criteria must be filled for a structure to be considered an attractive nuisance.

  • It is reasonable to believe that the structure will entice children to trespass. The structure must be “attractive” to children; the doctrine does not simply apply to all hazardous structures.
  • The property owner understands (or should understand) the risk the structure poses to children. The risk must be apparent to a reasonable person. Thus, a structure is not considered a reasonable nuisance if the injury that occurs is because of an unforeseeable freak accident.
  • Children, because of their youth, are unable to understand the risk that the structure poses. The risk must be one that children cannot comprehend; a structure so obviously dangerous that even a child could understand the risks associated with it would likely not qualify as an attractive nuisance, although it may be considered as another type of nuisance.
  • The cost of eliminating the risk is insignificant compared to the risk involved. It must not require unreasonably large amounts of resources to eliminate the risk.
  • The property owner does not exercise reasonable care to eliminate the risk. Finally, the owner must not take action to eliminate the risk. If an owner does take reasonable care and a child still trespasses, the owner would likely not be held liable for harboring an attractive nuisance.

This article is not intended to serve as, or as a replacement for, legal advice. If your child has been injured as a result of an attractive nuisance, contact the Philadelphia personal injury lawyers, Lowenthal & Abrams, P.C., at 215-238-1130.

home  |  firm profile  |  practice areas  |  articles  |  faqs  |  blog  |  contact us  | resources | sitemap | Log in

Locations: King of Prussia | Norristown

©2007-2009 Lowenthal and Abrams, P.C. All rights reserved
Philadelphia, PA. | Manhattan, NY. | Newark, NJ. The hiring of a attorney is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a attorney/client relationship. Copyright .