The legal issue is whether or not George is liable for Adam’s injury due to the
attractive nuisance doctrine.
The attractive nuisance doctrine states that possessors of property can be responsible
for injury to children if
1) The defendant was the possessor of and knew there was an artificial condition around which children were likely to trespass; 2) The defendant knew or should have known the condition posed an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm; 3) The child didn't realize the risk of injury or death because of his/her youth; and, 4) The defendant didn't exercise reasonable care to protect the child.
Firstly, is George in possession of the land?
In order to be liable under the attractive nuisance doctrine, the defendant must be the possessor of the land. Since George has been living on the land for his entire life, and he is 76 years old, it is reasonable to assume that he owns the land. But even if he didn’t own the land, and instead was renting, it is still clear that he farms the land. So he is still clearly in possession of it.
Secondly, was there an artificial condition around, which children were likely to trespass and if George knew of it?
The water tower has been on George’s property ever since before he was born. When George was a little child he used to try to climb up the tower, but he could never do it because it is not easy to climb without a ladder or some kind of equipment. Therefore, George is aware of the fact that there is an attractive nuisance around, which children as Adam, who is six years old, were likely to trespass because George himself as a child also tried to do.
Thirdly, does George know or should he have known that the water tower posed an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm?
It is stated in Bell v Grackin that the attractive nuisance cases applies only where the instrument or artificial condition is within...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document