Attractive Nuisance

DOCTRINE OF ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE
Considering the vulnerability of children, the Philippines has adhered to the

doctrine of attractive nuisance.
In this regard, Philippine law defines a “nuisance” as any act, omission,

establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which: (a)
injures or endangers the health or safety of others; (b) annoys or offends the
senses; (c) shocks, defies, or disregards decency or morality; (d) obstructs or
interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body
of water; or (e) hinders or impairs the use of property.
In Hidalgo Enterprises Inc. v. Balandan, the Supreme Court held that, under
the doctrine of attractive nuisance, one who maintains on his premises
dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract
children in play, and who fail to exercise ordinary care to prevent children
from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender
years who is injured thereby. The owner of such premises remains liable
even if the child were a trespasser.
An instrumentality or appliance on one’s property may be classified as an

attractive nuisance because even if its danger were apparent to those of legal
age, it is as enticing or alluring to children as to induce them to approach, get
on or use it.
Implementing safeguards
This attractiveness is an implied invitation to such children. Thus, property

owners must ensure the implementation of safeguards to prevent danger
arising from these attractive nuisances situated within their properties.
As a general rule, bodies of water, whether natural or artificial, are not
attractive nuisances since children are instructed early on and thus, may be
sufficiently presumed to know the danger of drowning.
Swimming pools or water tanks, however, may be considered an attractive

nuisance if they had some unusual condition or artificial feature other than
mere water and their location.
Other examples of attractive nuisances include abandoned or unused large

appliances or equipment or any parts thereof, unsafe edifice, unsecured or
abandoned excavation areas, and any other instrumentality or appliance
which may prove a hazard for minors.
The heirs of children who sustained injuries or died because of attractive
nuisances may hold the owner of the property where they are located for
actual damages. In particular, the property owner may be held liable for all
damages which are the natural and probable consequences of his negligence
in failing to set up safeguards against the attractive nuisance.
Said property owner may likewise be held liable for moral and exemplary
damages for physical injuries that may be sustained by the children from the
attractive nuisance.
HIDALGO ENTERPRISES, INC. vs. GUILLERMO BALANDAN,
ANSELMA ANILA and THE COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. L-3422, June 13, 1952
PARTIES:
Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. - petitioner
Guillermo Balandan, Anselma Anila – private respondents, parents of
Mario Balandan
FACTS:
Hidalgo Enterprises was the owner of an ice plant, in whose premises

were installed two tanks full of water, nine feet deep, for cooling purposes of
its engine. The factory was fenced but anyone could easily enter the premises
because the entrance gate was continually open and there was no guard
assigned in the said gate. Also, the tanks didn’t have any fence or top covers.
At about noon of 16 April 1948, Guillermo’s son, Mario Balandan, a

boy barely 8 years old, while playing with and in company of other boys of
his age, entered the factory premises through the gate, to take a bath in one of
said tanks. Mario sank to the bottom of the tank, only to be fished out later,
already a cadaver, having been died of "asphyxia" secondary to drowning.
The lower court decided in the favor of the parents stating that that the
petitioner is liable for damages due to the fact that the petitioner maintained
an attractive nuisance (the tanks), and neglected to adopt the necessary
precautions to avoid accidents to persons entering its premises, applying the
doctrine of attractive nuisance. The Court of Appeals affirmed it.
ISSUE:
Whether the subject water tanks are attractive nuisance?
RULING:
NO. The doctrine of attractive nuisance states that “One who maintains on his
premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to
attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent
children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of
tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser
in the premises. The principle reason for the doctrine is that the condition or
appliance in question although its danger is apparent to those of age, is so
enticing or alluring to children of tender years as to induce them to approach,
get on or use it, and this attractiveness is an implied invitation to such children
American jurisprudence shows us that the attractive nuisance doctrine

generally is not applicable to bodies of water, artificial as well as natural, in
the absence of some unusual condition or artificial feature other than the mere
water and its location. In the case bar, the water tanks themselves do not fall
under such doctrine thus, the petitioners cannot be held liable for Mario’s
death.
The reason why a swimming pool or pond or reservoir of water is not

considered an attractive nuisance was lucidly explained by the Indiana
Appellate Court as follows:
Nature has created streams, lakes and pools which attract

children. Lurking in their waters is always the danger of drowning.
Against this danger children are early instructed so that they are
sufficiently presumed to know the danger; and if the owner of private
property creates an artificial pool on his own property, merely
duplicating the work of nature without adding any new danger. He is
not liable because of having created an "attractive nuisance."
The appealed decision is reversed and the Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. is

absolved from liability. No costs.

Attractive Nuisance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attractive Nuisance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attractive Nuisance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOCTRINE OF ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE

Considering the vulnerability of children, the Philippines has adhered to the

In this regard, Philippine law defines a “nuisance” as any act, omission,

An instrumentality or appliance on one’s property may be classified as an

This attractiveness is an implied invitation to such children. Thus, property

Swimming pools or water tanks, however, may be considered an attractive

Other examples of attractive nuisances include abandoned or unused large

Hidalgo Enterprises was the owner of an ice plant, in whose premises

At about noon of 16 April 1948, Guillermo’s son, Mario Balandan, a

Whether the subject water tanks are attractive nuisance?

American jurisprudence shows us that the attractive nuisance doctrine

The reason why a swimming pool or pond or reservoir of water is not

Nature has created streams, lakes and pools which attract

The appealed decision is reversed and the Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. is

You might also like