Who needs to be aware of the attractive nuisance doctrine?
A property owner who maintains a condition on his property that is dangerous, or that could be dangerous, can be liable for that condition even possibly if somebody is injured when they’re trespassing on their property. Let me give you an example I think everyone will understand. Swimming pools can be dangerous, especially dangerous to children and particularly to young children. And we have lots of episodes of children drowning in swimming pools. A swimming pool, in a sense, is always dangerous to children of a certain age. We have laws that require your pool to be fenced. If your pool is not properly fenced and some child wanders on your property, even though they’re trespassing, you can expect that you’re going to be liable for the death and injury of that child because you were maintaining a dangerous condition on your property, which in that particular instance would violate a local law. However, it doesn’t always need to violate a local law to still potential create liability if
