The tantalizing nuisance belief is the legal doctrine that holds a property owner liable for structures on their property that may be tantalizing to children, who may not understand or comprehend the risks related with that structure. Typically this example applies to swimming pools, which are inherently tantalizing to children but can gift a clear risk to children who may drown. If property owners do not properly acquire their swimming pools, they may be held liable for any injuries that result, and for this reason, the majority of swimming pools are locked or otherwise secured.
The buildings must reasonably entice children to play on or around it. It must be an "attractive" nuisance, however, precedent has been set such that practically any buildings on a person's property may be tantalizing to children. The property owner understands (or should understand) the risk the buildings poses to children. The risk must be reasonably gift and inherent in the buildings itself; the injury cannot be the supervene of naturally a freak accident. A child must not be able to comprehend the risk of the structure. The risk must be such that the danger is reasonably present, but not so clear that even a child could understand the risk. If, for example, a property owner had a immense bonfire on his property, the risk related with a fire is so gift even a child should be able to understand it, and although he or she may be guilty of one type of nuisance, it likely is not an tantalizing nuisance. The cost vs. Advantage of eliminating the risk must be reasonable. If eliminating the risk would take an immoderate whole of financial resources or effort, an owner cannot reasonably be foreseen, to take the action. The property owner fails to eliminate the risk. If the owner does take activity to mitigate the risk and child still trespasses, he likely is not liable. For example, if a property owner has a swimming pool that he surrounds with a locked gate and a child hops the fence to swim in the pool and suffers an injury, the owner would likley not be liable because he took activity to mitigate the risk.
0 comments:
Post a Comment