Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Woman falls from CN bridge - dies
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="gardendance"] <p>An example of attractive nuisance: a chemical company buys a disused swimming pool. During a long heat wave they decide to use the pool to store a few million gallons of acid. Despite the "no trespassing" and "no swimming" signs, people climb over the chain link fence, jump in the pool and get dissolved in acid.</p><p>Is there anybody who believes the chemical company is less than 50% at fault in this scenario?</p><p>[/quote]</p><p>To your question: I will not speak for forum members here, but in society overall, I would estimate that 90% of people would believe that the chemical company is not at fault to any degree. They would say that the pool was on private property and was posted against trespassing, so what ever happens to trespassers is entirely their own fault. Of course this is incorrect, and the 90% holding this view would be incredulous to learn that they are wrong. They probably would not even accept it.</p><p>You label your example as <strong><em>attractive nuisance</em></strong>, which is defined as follows:</p><p><font size="4">Something on a piece of property that attracts children but also endangers heir safety. For example, unfenced swimming pools, open pits, farm equipment and abandoned refrigerators have all qualified as attractive nuisances. </font></p><p><font size="2">The definition stipulates that it applies to children, and it is assumed that children might not be able to read no trespassing signs, or understand what they mean if they can read them. However, there are many conditions and complications in defining attractive nuisance.</font> </p><p>From Wikipedia: </p><p><font size="4">"While putting up a sign to warn children regarding the danger of the land may exempt the landowner from liability, it will not work in all situations. This is particularly true when the child cannot read the sign. Usually the landowner must take some more affirmative steps to protect children.</font></p><p><font size="4">There is no set cut off point that defines youth. The courts will evaluate each "child" on case by case basis to see if the "child" qualifies as a youth."</font></p><p>My guess is that the chemical company might be found 100% at fault if the victims were children. A swimming pool is the classic example of attractive nuisance. </p><p>However, attractive nuisance is not the only legal theory whereby a landowner can be held responsible for death or injury to a trespasser. Landowners can be held liable for harm to trespassers who are not children.</p>
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
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy