Court Opinion

ID: 9737301
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:21:13.157063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:57.927990
License: Public Domain

STONE, J. pro tem.*
I concur in the result but I do not approve of the discussion of the attractive nuisance doctrine. The grass which attracted the children had not been planted by the absentee landowner but was a volunteer crop. The dangerous instrumentality, the mowing machine, which injured the youngster was not owned, maintained or operated by the landowner. For these reasons, I do not believe the case comes within the scope of the attractive nuisance doctrine. Otherwise, I concur in the opinion affirming the judgment.
' Draper, J., concurred.
Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied August 24, 1960.