An attractive nuisance under Florida law is a condition on someone's property that is likely to attract children and pose a risk of harm to them. For example, a swimming pool, trampoline, or abandoned well could be considered an attractive nuisance.
In Florida, the attractive nuisance doctrine imposes a duty on property owners to take reasonable steps to prevent children from being harmed by attractive nuisances on their property. If a child is injured on someone's property due to an attractive nuisance, the property owner may be liable for the child's injuries. To recover damages, the child's parents or guardians must prove that the property owner knew or should have known about the attractive nuisance and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent harm to children.
It is important to note that the doctrine of attractive nuisance is not recognized in every state and the specific requirements and criteria vary by jurisdiction. If you have questions about attractive nuisances and liability in Florida, it is best to consult with a qualified Florida personal injury attorney.
We offer free legal consultations, and we’re happy to give you a free consultation and talk more with you about your child’s injuries. All you have to do to schedule your consultation is call us at (321) 352-7588, or you can contact us on our website. Now, let’s talk more about attractive nuisance law in Florida.
How Do You Determine Liability Based on Attractive Nuisance Doctrine in Florida?
In Florida, liability based on the attractive nuisance doctrine can be determined by weighing the following factors:
- The property owner's knowledge of the attractive nuisance: If the property owner was aware of the attractive nuisance and its potential danger to children, they may be held liable for any injuries that result.
- The foreseeability of harm: If it was foreseeable that children would be attracted to the attractive nuisance and be at risk of harm, the property owner may be held liable for any injuries that result.
- The feasibility of remedying the situation: If it was feasible for the property owner to take steps to eliminate the attractive nuisance or prevent access to it, they may be held liable for any injuries that result.
- The extent of the risk: The greater the risk posed by the attractive nuisance, the more likely the property owner will be held liable for any injuries that result.
What is an Example of an Attractive Nuisance?
An example of an attractive nuisance in Florida is an abandoned well or an unsecured swimming pool. These types of hazards are likely to attract children and pose a risk of harm to them. For example, a child might fall into an abandoned well or drown in an unsecured swimming pool. In such cases, the property owner may be liable for the child's injuries if they knew or should have known about the hazard and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent harm to children.
Other examples of attractive nuisances in Florida may include the following:
- An unsecured trampoline;
- A large pile of construction materials;
- A neglected, overgrown property with large bushes or trees;
- A pond or lake that is not properly secured or fenced; or
- An animal enclosure that is not properly secured or fenced.
It is important to note that the doctrine of attractive nuisance is not recognized in every state and the specific requirements and criteria vary by jurisdiction. If you have questions about attractive nuisances and liability in Florida, it is best to consult with a qualified attorney.
Why is The Attractive Nuisance Doctrine Significant?
The attractive nuisance doctrine is significant because it creates a duty of a landlord to exercise reasonable care with regard to a trespasser. Namely, the attractive nuisance doctrine creates a narrow exception to the general rule that a landowner is not liable for a trespasser's injuries when the trespasser is a child.
The attractive nuisance exception essentially recognizes that children wander and don't necessarily understand property lines. It also recognizes that children don't have the wisdom and knowledge necessary to appreciate dangers they may encounter. This special set of rules applies to children that are trespassers, licensees, and invitees, but the cases that examine this issue usually involve a child trespasser.
Landmark Cases on the Issue of Attractive Nuisance
The attractive nuisance doctrine is sometimes called the "turntable doctrine" because of a US Supreme Court case called Railroad Company v. Stout, 84 U.S. 657 (1873) and another case from Minnesota called Keefe v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry., 21 Minn. 207 (Minn. 1875). These cases both involved a child getting injured while playing on a turntable owned by a railroad company.
Railroad Company v. Stout, 84 U.S. 657 (1873)
In this case, a six-year-old boy named Henry Stout suffered injuries playing on a turntable owned by the railroad company. The boy lived about three-quarters of a mile from the area in a small town of about 150 people. Henry went onto the property with two other boys to explore.
The turntable was unguarded, and it wasn't fastened or locked. The two other boys began to turn the turntable, and Henry tried to get on it. His foot got caught between the end of the rail on the turntable and the end of a rail on the main track and was crushed.
An employee of the company testified that he had seen children playing on the turntable before and had told them not to. However, he never reported the issue to anyone else at the company. Additionally, one of the boys had played on the turntable before in view of a group of railroad workers, but Henry had never played on the turntable before.
There was a latch on the turntable that could be used to stop the turntable from turning. However, on the date of the incident, the latch was broken. Also, this latch was not fastened at the time Henry was injured.
The railroad company's main argument was that Henry's parents were at fault and Henry was trespassing, and thus it should not be liable for his injuries. The jury, however, disagreed and found for the plaintiff in the amount of $7,500, which was a lot of money back then.
The case went up on appeals and eventually to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court affirmed that Henry was entitled to recover damages from the railroad company.
The following is language directly from the Court's opinion:
While it is the general rule in regard to an adult, that to entitle him to recover damages for an injury resulting from the fault or negligence of another, he must himself have been free from fault, such is not the rule in regard to an infant of tender years. The care and caution required of a child is according to his maturity and capacity only, and this is to be determined in each case by the circumstances of that case.
Keefe v. Milwaukee & St. P. Ry., 21 Minn. 207 (Minn. 1875)
This case involved similar facts to that of RR v. Stout. There was a turntable owned by a railroad located just 120 feet from a little boy, Patrick Keefe. The turntable was not fastened, protected, or fenced, and there were not protections in place to keep small children from playing on it.
On September 11, 1867, Patrick Keefe went to play on the turntable with other boys who were about his age. While playing, his right leg got caught between the turntable and an iron rail. As a result, his leg was mangled and had to be amputated.
The trial court entered a judgment on the pleadings for the defendant railroad, meaning that the plaintiff could not recover damage. The plaintiff appealed that decision, and ultimately the case ended up before the Supreme Court of Minnesota. The court reversed the trial court's judgment.
The Supreme Court of Minnesota provided the following language and reasoning regarding the attractive nuisance doctrine:
We agree with the defendant's counsel that a railroad company is not required to make its land a safe play-ground for children. It has the same right to maintain and use its turntable that any landowner has to use his property. It is not an insurer of the lives or limbs of young children who play upon its premises. We merely decide that when it sets before young children a temptation which it has reason to believe will lead them into danger, it must use ordinary care to protect them from harm. What would be proper care in any case must, in general, be a question for the jury, upon all the circumstances of the case.
The Attractive Nuisance Standard That Emerged
Many other cases after Stout and Keefe interpreted the issue of attractive nuisance and a standard began to emerge. These became the elements of attractive nuisance that I was taught in law school, the boxes a plaintiff must check to recover damages. Those elements are as follows:
- The area where the condition exists is one where the owner knows or has a reason to know that children will likely trespass.
- The condition is such that the owner knows or has reason to know that it poses an unreasonable risk of serious bodily injury or death to a trespassing child.
- The injured child either does not discover the dangerous condition or does not realize the danger of the condition due to the child's age or youth.
- The benefit to the owner of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger of that condition are slight when weighed against the potential risk to the children involved.
- The owner fails to act reasonably or use reasonable care in eliminating the danger posed to children.
Notice that the standard does not give a clear age at which the attractive nuisance doctrine would no longer apply. Courts have been fairly inconsistent on this point. Some set an arbitrary age limit, say 14 years old. Other courts look at the issue on a case-by-case basis.
Theoretically, there is no reason why the doctrine would not apply to teenagers under 18. However, in light of the policy justification, that children are not able to comprehend the true danger of a condition, one could assume that older children would be able to appreciate certain dangers younger children would not. Thus, if the case were in front of a jury, the jury may find that an older child would not be entitled to damages where a younger child would be, even under the exact same circumstances.
Conclusion on the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine
The attractive nuisance doctrine is one of those exceptions courts created to account for unique circumstances. Whereas an adult trespasser is generally owed no duty of care from a landowner, a child trespasser may be entitled to compensation where that child was injured due to an attractive nuisance.
Although nuanced, this rule makes sense. Although a generally applicable law is clean and efficient when it can be applied across all circumstances, exceptions are warranted when the law would lead to an unjust outcome.