Dangerous Property Conditions Leading to Premises Liability Lawsuits under Personal Injury
Child Injuries on Property – Legal Concerns under Personal Injury Law
Children are among the most vulnerable groups when it comes to injuries, especially on someone else’s property. In personal injury law, premises liability governs situations where a child is injured due to dangerous conditions on land or buildings. Property owners can be held legally responsible if certain conditions are met.
I. Premises Liability and Children
Premises liability is a type of negligence where the owner or occupier of land is held responsible for injuries that occur due to unsafe conditions on the property.
Duty of Care Depends on the Status of the Visitor:
Invitee – Someone invited for business (e.g., customer)
Licensee – Social guest
Trespasser – Enters without permission
Ordinarily, landowners owe minimal duty to trespassers—but this changes significantly when the trespasser is a child.
II. The Attractive Nuisance Doctrine
This doctrine creates a special legal exception for children who are injured on property, even if they were trespassing.
Definition:
Property owners may be liable if a dangerous condition on their property is likely to attract children who are unable to understand the risk.
Key Elements:
Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339, liability may arise when:
The property owner knows or should know children are likely to trespass.
The condition is one the owner knows or should know poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious harm.
The children, due to their age, do not realize the danger involved.
The burden of eliminating the danger is slight compared to the risk.
The owner fails to take reasonable steps to eliminate the danger or protect the children.
III. Common "Attractive Nuisances"
Swimming pools
Trampolines
Construction sites
Abandoned appliances or vehicles
Machinery
Dangerous animals
IV. Key Case Law
1. Keffe v. Milwaukee & St. Paul R.R. Co., 21 Minn. 207 (1875)
Facts: A child was injured while playing on a railroad company’s unguarded turntable.
Holding: The court held the railroad liable, recognizing that it had reason to know children would be attracted to the turntable.
Significance: This case helped establish the attractive nuisance doctrine, emphasizing that property owners must take precautions if children are likely to be lured to a hazardous condition.
2. Sioux City & Pacific R.R. Co. v. Stout, 84 U.S. 657 (1873)
Facts: A child was injured playing on an unguarded turntable.
Holding: The Supreme Court upheld liability, reasoning that children cannot appreciate risks the way adults do.
Principle: Children are owed a higher duty of care under the law, even when technically trespassing.
3. Bennett v. Stanley, 92 Ohio St.3d 35 (2001)
Facts: A 5-year-old child drowned in a backyard pond. The yard had no fence, and the child wandered in.
Holding: The court ruled that the attractive nuisance doctrine could apply to natural features (like a pond) when modified or surrounded by artificial conditions making them unusually dangerous.
Significance: This case expanded the doctrine beyond purely artificial conditions (e.g., a pool) to natural features under certain circumstances.
V. Special Legal Doctrines Affecting Child Injury Cases
1. Comparative Negligence (Modified for Children)
A child's conduct is judged by what is reasonable for their age and experience.
Younger children (usually under age 7) are often presumed incapable of negligence.
For older children, courts may assess whether their actions were reasonable based on child standards, not adult ones.
2. Parental Supervision
Defendants sometimes argue that parents were negligent in supervising the child.
However, courts often focus on foreseeability and property owner responsibility, especially when hazards are known or should be known to the landowner.
VI. Defenses in Child Injury Premises Cases
1. No Knowledge of Trespassing
Property owner may argue they had no reason to believe children would be on the property.
2. Obvious Danger
If the danger is obvious even to children of the age in question, liability may be avoided.
3. Comparative Fault of Child (if applicable)
In states with comparative negligence laws, damages may be reduced if the child was partly at fault (e.g., older teen ignoring warning signs).
4. Parental Negligence
In rare cases, contributory negligence of a parent might reduce or bar recovery (but many jurisdictions do not allow parental fault to be imputed to the child).
VII. Legal Remedies for Injured Children
Types of Damages:
Medical expenses (past and future)
Pain and suffering
Loss of future earning capacity
Emotional distress
Parental damages – Parents may also seek damages for medical costs and loss of services.
Legal Procedure Notes:
A guardian ad litem is usually appointed to represent the child’s best interests in court.
Settlements involving minors often require court approval.
VIII. Summary Table
| Legal Concept | Description |
|---|---|
| Premises Liability | Holds property owners responsible for injuries on their land |
| Attractive Nuisance | Higher duty owed to children, even if trespassing |
| Standard of Care for Children | Based on age, not adult standards |
| Common Hazards | Pools, trampolines, machinery, construction sites |
| Landmark Case | Keffe v. Milwaukee R.R. – Established attractive nuisance doctrine |
| Liability Factors | Knowledge of risk, foreseeability, ability to make area safe |
| Possible Defenses | No foreseeability, obvious danger, comparative fault |
IX. Conclusion
Child injury cases on property are among the most sensitive and complex areas of personal injury law. Courts tend to side with protecting children due to their lack of maturity and ability to appreciate danger. The attractive nuisance doctrine plays a central role in assigning liability even when the child is technically trespassing.
RELATED Blog
0 comments