Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="gardendance"] [quote user="Bucyrus"] But your example also states that the acid pool is protected by a chain link fence.  And the victims had to climb over the fence in order to gain access.  So presumably, the fence is in good condition.  That might disqualify your example as being attractive nuisance.  Thus, if it is not an example of attractive nuisance, I don't see how the chemical company could be held liable.  It seems to me that fencing residential swimming pools is considered to be the sufficiently responsible measure for the protection of children who might otherwise be lured to the pool.  So I think you have to remove the fence in order to label your example as attractive nuisance.Or you could leave the fence in your example, and just say that it has a hole it it.    [/quote]No, I was thinking more on the lines that the chain link fence was enough if it was a pool filled with water, but the swimming pool with acid needs more protection. And I was thinking the neighborhood was populated entirely with Ordinary Prudent People, and maybe one or two Easter Bunnies :) [/quote]You might be right about the pool full of acid needing more than a chain link fence to mitigate liability.  I imagine that a lot of hairs get split in deciding how far a landowner must go to protect a trespasser from harm.  If your example meets the definition of attractive nuisance, then I suspect the chemical company is at fault.  But then with Mark's example of your own swimming pool with a safety fence and warning signs, it would be a conventional water-filled pool, and the fence and signs would probably be deemed adequate to protect you from attractive nuisance liability.  So the two examples would not be analogous.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag