Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    Attractive Nuisance Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    Marga Castillo
    The doctrine of attractive nuisance creates an exception to the general rule that a landowner owes no duty to trespassers. Under this doctrine, a landowner can be liable for injuries to trespassing children if there is a dangerous condition or object on the land that is likely to attract children who are too young to appreciate the risks. For the doctrine to apply, courts consider whether: (1) the landowner knows children trespass; (2) the condition could seriously harm children; (3) children are too young to understand risks; (4) fixing the condition has minimal cost; and (5) the landowner failed to address the danger. The doctrine recognizes that children deserve different legal protections than adults even if tres

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Attractive Nuisance Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    Marga Castillo
    31 views2 pages
    The doctrine of attractive nuisance creates an exception to the general rule that a landowner owes no duty to trespassers. Under this doctrine, a landowner can be liable for injuries to trespassing children if there is a dangerous condition or object on the land that is likely to attract children who are too young to appreciate the risks. For the doctrine to apply, courts consider whether: (1) the landowner knows children trespass; (2) the condition could seriously harm children; (3) children are too young to understand risks; (4) fixing the condition has minimal cost; and (5) the landowner failed to address the danger. The doctrine recognizes that children deserve different legal protections than adults even if tres

    Original Title

    statutory construction.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The doctrine of attractive nuisance creates an exception to the general rule that a landowner owes no duty to trespassers. Under this doctrine, a landowner can be liable for injuries to trespassing children if there is a dangerous condition or object on the land that is likely to attract children who are too young to appreciate the risks. For the doctrine to apply, courts consider whether: (1) the landowner knows children trespass; (2) the condition could seriously harm children; (3) children are too young to understand risks; (4) fixing the condition has minimal cost; and (5) the landowner failed to address the danger. The doctrine recognizes that children deserve different legal protections than adults even if tres

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    31 views2 pages

    Attractive Nuisance Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    Marga Castillo
    The doctrine of attractive nuisance creates an exception to the general rule that a landowner owes no duty to trespassers. Under this doctrine, a landowner can be liable for injuries to trespassing children if there is a dangerous condition or object on the land that is likely to attract children who are too young to appreciate the risks. For the doctrine to apply, courts consider whether: (1) the landowner knows children trespass; (2) the condition could seriously harm children; (3) children are too young to understand risks; (4) fixing the condition has minimal cost; and (5) the landowner failed to address the danger. The doctrine recognizes that children deserve different legal protections than adults even if tres

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    3.

    DOCTRINE OF ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE- The Attractive Nuisance Doctrine creates an


    exception to the rule that the owner of a piece of land or property does not owe any duty to a trespasser other
    than to refrain from willfully injuring them. This doctrine usually only applies to trespassing children who are
    enticed onto a landowner’s property by some attractive nuisance. Under this doctrine, the owner of the land or
    the premises owes the same legal requirements to the child as they would to a person they invite onto their
    premises. While the child may fall under the definition of a trespasser, the protections a landowner must
    provide them are different than what is required for an older person who is trespassing. It is determined that
    children are owed a different “duty of care” even if they are trespassing on a landowner’s property. While
    attractive nuisance lawsuits are often taken on a case-by-case basis, there are five main principles that a court
    will use in every situation to determine whether or not an object was an attractive nuisance:

    1. The owner of the land knows or should know that children are likely to enter or trespass onto their
    property.

    2. The owner of the land knows the object or condition on the landowner’s property could seriously
    harm or lead to the death of a child.

    3. The children who trespass are too inexperienced or too young to understand the consequences of their
    actions or the risk that they face.

    4. The cost to the landowner to fix the condition or the benefit of maintaining it is minimal compared to
    the risk it creates for children.

    5. The landowner fails to take reasonable steps to correct the condition and eliminate any dangers to
    children.

    1. G.R. No. L-3422             June 13, 1952


    HIDALGO ENTERPRISES, INC., petitioner,
    vs.
    GUILLERMO BALANDAN, ANSELMA ANILA and THE COURT OF
    APPEALS, respondents

    2. G.R. No. L-33722 July 29, 1988

    FEDERICO YLARDE and ADELAIDA DORONIO petitioners,


    vs.
    EDGARDO AQUINO, MAURO SORIANO and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

    Buenaventura C. Evangelista for petitioners.

    Modesto V. Cabanela for respondent Edgardo Aquino.

    Manuel P. Pastor for respondent Mauro Soriano.


    3. G.R. No. 129792 December 21, 1999

    JARCO MARKETING CORPORATION, LEONARDO KONG, JOSE TIOPE and ELISA


    PANELO, petitioners,
    vs.
    HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, CONRADO C. AGUILAR and CRISELDA R.
    AGUILAR, respondents.

    4. G.R. No. L-9966            February 14, 1916

    TRINIDAD DE AYALA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,


    vs.
    ANTONIO M. BARRETTO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

    D.R. Williams for appellants.


    C.W. O'Brien for appellees.

    5. G.R. No. L-4977             March 22, 1910

    DAVID TAYLOR, plaintiff-appellee,
    vs.
    THE MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY, defendant-appellant.

    THE DOCTRINE OF CONCLUSIVE JUDGMENT

    .R. No. 149624               September 29, 2010

    SPOUSES CONRADO ANTONIO and AVELYN ANTONIO, Petitioners,


    vs.
    JULITA SAYMAN VDA. DE MONJE, substituted by her heirs, namely: ANGELINA MONJE-
    VILLAMOR, LUZVISMINDA MONJE-CORTEL, MARRIETA MONJE-ORTICO, LEOPOLDO
    MONJE, CONCEPCION SAYMAN-MONJE, and ROLINDA MONJE-CALO, Respondents.

    You might also like