When a child suffers injuries on another’s property, it is terrifying for parents and the child alike. In California, the attractive nuisance doctrine once had special provisions that held property owners accountable for hazards that could lure children into dangerous property.
California abolished the doctrine in 1970. Today, you must look to the general premises liability principles for injured children.
General duty of care
At this time, private and commercial property owners have an ordinary duty of care to maintain reasonably safe conditions for all visitors, including children.
Some of their specific duties under the law include:
- Regularly inspecting the premises for hazards
- Providing warnings about dangers that may not be apparent
Fulfilling these duties can prevent children from wandering onto the property and suffering tragic but preventable accidents.
Liability for injuries
Despite the loss of the attractive nuisance doctrine, property owners are still liable for injuries if they fail to meet their duty of care.
For example, say a child is injured on a trampoline or other enticing hazard on someone’s property. The owner may be liable if they did not secure the area or provide adequate warnings.
The path to justice
Without the attractive nuisance doctrine, parents must rely on the broader premises liability laws to seek compensation for their child. These laws emphasize the importance of property owners taking proactive measures to ensure safety while offering a pathway to justice for the family.
It may be beneficial to seek legal guidance. This can help to ensure your child’s injuries are fairly compensated even without attractive nuisance protection.