Opinion ID: 2218205
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: attractive nuisance doctrine

Text: In Gubalke v. Estate of Anthes, 189 Neb. 385, 390-91, 202 N.W.2d 836, 840 (1972), this court, quoting from and adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339 (1965), defined the attractive nuisance doctrine as: A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land if (a) the place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and (b) the condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children, and (c) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and (d) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to the children involved, and (e) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children. See, also, Davis v. Cunningham, 196 Neb. 8, 241 N.W.2d 343 (1976). In Nebraska, therefore, the attractive nuisance doctrine has developed to mitigate the severity of common-law liability based on possession of real estate insofar as premises liability applies to young children. Underlying the attractive nuisance doctrine is recognition of a young child's inability to protect himself in a situation encountered through a child's attraction to a dangerous condition and the child's immaturity and lack of judgment for appreciation of danger involved in the condition encountered. Barnhizer v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 123 Ariz. 253, 599 P.2d 209 (1979); O'Keefe v. South End Rowing Club, 64 Cal.2d 729, 414 P.2d 830, 51 Cal.Rptr. 534 (1966); Moseley v. City of Kansas City, 170 Kan. 585, 228 P.2d 699 (1951); Lister v. Campbell, 371 So.2d 133 (Fla.App.1979). Consequently, under the attractive nuisance doctrine, a possessor of premises may be liable for a young child's injury or death if the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate danger from the premises or otherwise protect young children from the dangerous condition of the premises. Gubalke v. Estate of Anthes, supra ; Davis v. Cunningham, supra . Wiles suggests that the attractive nuisance doctrine should not be restricted to artificial conditions, but should be extended to include liability for a natural condition which is dangerous to young children. Most courts have refused to apply the attractive nuisance doctrine to natural conditions or conditions which are similar to or replicate nature; for example, see, Gagnier v. Curran Const. Co., 151 Mont. 468, 443 P.2d 894 (1968) (cave-in of a ditch used for waterline construction); Fitch v. Selwyn Village, 234 N.C. 632, 68 S.E.2d 255 (1951) (drowning in a deep creek adjacent to a residential development); and Anderson v. Reith-Riley Const. Co., 112 Ind.App. 170, 44 N.E.2d 184 (1942) (cave-in of a hole or tunnel being dug by a child in a perpendicular wall of a pit excavated for sand). Although § 339 of the Restatement fashions an attractive nuisance doctrine in reference to artificial conditions only, the American Law Institute inserted a Caveat immediately below § 339: The Institute expresses no opinion as to whether the rule [stated in § 339] may not apply to natural conditions of the land. The Restatement, supra at 197. However, a well-known commentator has observed and believes that origin of a condition may be a factor in determining whether a child appreciates a risk, but should not be dispositive on applicability of the attractive nuisance doctrine; consequently, the distinction between natural and artificial conditions should be abandoned. See Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, Owners and Occupiers of Land § 59 at 403 (5th ed. 1984): It is difficult to see why the origin of the condition should in itself be dispositive on liability, if the possessor could easily remove it or protect against it, and fails to do so. See, also, Note, Torts: Attractive Nuisance Doctrine: Applicability to Natural Conditions, 2 Okla.L.Rev. 537 (1949); Note, Trespassing Children: A Study in Expanding Liability, 20 Vand.L.Rev. 139 (1966). Cf. King v. Lennen, 53 Cal.2d 340, 348 P.2d 98, 1 Cal.Rptr. 665 (1959) (attractive nuisance doctrine applies notwithstanding the common nature of a danger, if the child is too young to realize the danger). For applicability of the attractive nuisance doctrine to a negligence action, a plaintiff has the burden to show that as the result of a child's youth, the child involved in the action failed to discover a dangerous condition on the possessor's land or realize the risk from the dangerous condition. O'Keefe v. South End Rowing Club, 64 Cal.2d 729, 414 P.2d 830, 51 Cal.Rptr. 534 (1966); Hocking v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Ry. Co., 263 Minn. 483, 117 N.W.2d 304 (1962); Dragonjac v. McGaffin Con. & Sup. Co., 409 Pa. 276,186 A.2d 241 (1962). Thus, if a child understood and appreciated the dangerous condition of or on the possessor's land, the attractive nuisance doctrine is inapplicable to a negligence action for a child's bodily injury or death. See, Hughes v. Union Pacific R. Co., 114 Idaho 466, 757 P.2d 1185 (1988); Barnhizer v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist., supra ; McGill v. City of Laurel, 252 Miss. 740, 173 So.2d 892 (1965); City of Dothan v. Gulledge, 276 Ala. 433, 163 So.2d 217 (1964); Dean v. Construction Co., 251 N.C. 581, 111 S.E.2d 827 (1960); Moseley v. City of Kansas City, supra ; Brannon v. Harmon, 56 Wash.2d 826, 355 P.2d 792 (1960). Recently, in Sikyta v. Arrow Stage Lines, 238 Neb. 289, 304, 470 N.W.2d 724, 733 (1991), we stated: [A] plaintiff's knowledge of danger, as an element in assumption of risk, may be proved by circumstantial evidence, since knowledge is a state of mind or a mental process. Similarly, a child's realization of the risk from a dangerous condition, in or on a possessor's land, may be established by circumstantial evidence. See O'Keefe v. South End Rowing Club, supra, 64 Cal.2d at 743 n. 8, 414 P.2d at 839 n. 8, 51 Cal.Rptr. at 543 n. 8: Such realization will ordinarily be shown by circumstantial evidence, and among that evidence falls the fact that the age, intelligence, and experience of the individual plaintiff are such that anyone similarly endowed would have realized the danger. `Circumstantial evidence' means facts or circumstances, proved or known, from which existence or nonexistence of another fact may be logically inferred or deduced through a rational process. State v. Jasper, 237 Neb. 754, 763, 467 N.W.2d 855, 862 (1991). Accord State v. Twohig, 238 Neb. 92, 469 N.W.2d 344 (1991). Several courts have found that the doctrine of attractive nuisance is inapplicable in a negligence action for a child's bodily injury or death resulting from a cave-in on a child who has the capacity, experience, and judgment of normal young children to realize the danger of earth collapsing into a cave or tunnel. In Anderson v. Reith-Riley Const. Co., 112 Ind.App. 170, 44 N.E.2d 184 (1942), the court considered the trial court's dismissal of a wrongful death action involving a 9-year-old boy who was killed when he tunneled into a bank of a sandpile which collapsed and killed the child. In affirming the dismissal of the plaintiff's action, the court commented: [A] common danger in cliffs and embankments is that of cave-ins from excavation below the surface. And it is common for children in play to make such excavations in the sides of cliffs and embankments for the purpose of creating caves, tunnels, etc. So they are early instructed as to the danger of cave-ins and are sufficiently presumed to know the danger that if the owner of private property by excavating on his own property, creates an artificial cliff or embankment, merely duplicating the work of nature without adding any new dangers, and a child, without invitation, ventures on the private property, excavates below the surface and is injured or killed by a resultant cave-in, the owner is not liable because of having created an attractive nuisance. Nor does the rule change with the varying texture of the earth. The danger is the same danger, real and obvious, with only the percentage of probability of the occurrance [sic] increased or decreased with the earth's fineness or firmness. 112 Ind.App. at 173, 44 N.E.2d at 185. Summary judgment for a landowner was also sustained in Sparks v. Casselberry Gardens, Inc., 227 So.2d 686 (Fla.App. 1969), where a 14-year-old boy appreciated and realized the danger of a cave-in while he was in an unsupported cave. See, also, Coleman v. Associated Pipeline Contractors, Inc., 444 F.2d 737 (5th Cir.1971) (under ordinary conditions, any child old enough to be allowed at large may reasonably be expected to have understood and appreciated the dangers in digging a cave in a 12-foot-high embankment). Cf. McDermott v. Kaczmarek, 2 Wash.App. 643, 654, 469 P.2d 191, 198 (1970), where the court, confronted with a 7-year-old child's fall from a cliff above a quarry, affirmed a summary judgment for a landowner and stated: In one of life's earliest lessons, a child learns that the law of gravity applies indiscriminately. Even before his first step, a toddler begins his lifelong accommodation to nature's pervading and inexorable force. We keep in mind that the attractive nuisance doctrine has developed from recognition of a young child's inability to provide self-protection when the child has been attracted to a dangerous condition, but immaturity and lack of judgment prevent the child's realization of the danger involved in the condition encountered. In reference to the attractive nuisance doctrine, the older and more experienced and intelligent a child, the less reason for application of the doctrine. Mark was 18 years of age, Michael 12. Both boys had average intelligence, were involved in various outdoor activities, and, generally, had the normal life experiences which might be reasonably expected in the lives of boys their own age. As a result of Mark's and Michael's age and intelligence, and in accordance with the general life experiences of boys the same age, Mark and Michael were aware of gravity and other forces of nature pertaining to the cave. Therefore, both Mark and Michael were old enough, and had the mental capacity, to realize the distinct danger involved in their presence within the Metzger cave, namely, the surrounding earth might collapse to fill the void of the cave. The peril of a cave-in was open and obvious to the unfortunate young men. Thus, under the circumstances existing in Wiles' cases, Mark Wiles and Michael Wiles each had the experience and judgment to realize the danger inherent in the cave, that is, they understood and appreciated the risk of their entering a cave such as that on the Metzger property; hence, Wiles failed to establish a necessary condition for application of the attractive nuisance doctrinea young child's inability to realize or appreciate danger encountered on a possessor's premises. We are not stating, expressly or impliedly, that the age of the boys, in and of itself, is the determinant for application of the attractive nuisance doctrine. A child's age in connection with applicability of the attractive nuisance doctrine is important only as a factor in determining whether a child discovers the condition which proves to be dangerous and realizes, or can be expected to realize, the risk from the dangerous condition on another's land. Consequently, a child's age supplies no bright line for application of the doctrine in a negligence action. Rather, applicability of the attractive nuisance doctrine depends on various factors, such as a child's age, intelligence, knowledge, experience, and ability or capacity to discover, observe, understand, or appreciate the nature of the danger or condition of or on a possessor's land and avoid the danger in the condition which causes the child's injury or death. See, Schorah v. Carey, 331 A.2d 383 (Del.1975); O'Keefe v. South End Rowing Club, 64 Cal.2d 729, 414 P.2d 830, 51 Cal.Rptr. 534 (1966); Ekdahl v. Minnesota Utilities Co., 203 Minn. 374, 281 N.W. 517 (1938); Fouraker v. Mullis, 120 So.2d 808 (Fla.App.1960); Lister v. Campbell, 371 So.2d 133 (Fla.App.1979). Concerning the preceding illustrative factors, no factor is weighted, that is, there is no prescribed method by which more or less weight is assigned to any of the illustrative factors bearing upon applicability of the attractive nuisance doctrine. Consequently, when the several illustrative factors are considered, we conclude that as a matter of law the attractive nuisance doctrine is inapplicable in Wiles' cases. For that reason, we affirm the summary judgments that the attractive nuisance doctrine is inapplicable in Wiles' actions. Although the district court based its conclusion on the condition of the premises, the condition of Mark and Michael Wiles, namely, their appreciation of the danger involved, is the reason for inapplicability of the attractive nuisance doctrine. See Sommerfeld v. City of Seward, 221 Neb. 76, 80, 375 N.W.2d 129, 132 (1985): Where the record adequately demonstrates that the decision of a trial court is correct, although such correctness is based on a ground or reason different from that assigned by the trial court, the Supreme Court will affirm. Accord, Millman v. County of Butler, 235 Neb. 915, 458 N.W.2d 207 (1990); Chicago Lumber Co. v. School Dist. No. 71, 227 Neb. 355, 417 N.W.2d 757 (1988).