Paul| Leave a Comment
One aspect of Georgia premises liability law is the concept of an attractive nuisance. An attractive nuisance lawsuit can hold property owners and occupiers liable for injuries caused to children on their premises, even if the children were trespassing at the time of the accident. Do you have a young loved one who was injured on another person’s property? If so, you may have a valid claim for an attractive nuisance lawsuit. To learn more about your legal options after an accident, call or contact the law office of Jonathan R. Brockman, P.C. in Atlanta today.
What is the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine?
The attractive nuisance doctrine is an aspect of premises liability law that pertains specifically to children trespassing on property. Unlike adults, who have the capacity to assess risk and avoid hazardous conditions, children cannot always comprehend the danger on another person’s premises. The attractive nuisance doctrine forces property owners and occupiers to protect children and lessen the danger of certain objects or hazards on their property. If a property owner fails to do so, they may be held liable under premises liability law in Georgia for any harm that comes to a child on their land, regardless of whether the child was trespassing.
Common Types of Attractive Nuisances
There are many types of attractive nuisances, with the majority being man-made conditions or items. Some of the most common types of attractive nuisances include the following:
Georgia law does not typically include natural phenomenon under the attractive nuisance doctrine, such as ponds or embankments. Dangers on premises caused by fires or falling from great heights may not apply as the courts typically assume that even children can appreciate the hazards caused by these conditions.
How to Prove an Attractive Nuisance
In order to prove that a property owner or occupier is liable under the attractive nuisance doctrine, an injured party must be able to prove each element of the following test. First, the owner knows or should have known that the property where the attractive nuisance exists is likely to have children trespassers. Second, that the owner knows or should have known that the attractive nuisance involves an unreasonable risk of harm or death to children. Third, that children because of their youth do not discover the hazardous condition or realize the risk of it. Fourth, that the efforts of maintaining the premises and eliminating the risk of the attractive nuisance are slight compared to the risk of harm. Lastly, that the owner failed to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the dangers associated with the attractive nuisance or otherwise protect children.
Talk to Our Office Now
If your child has been injured on the property of another person you may have a valid claim for compensation under the attractive nuisance doctrine. Call the office or contact us at the law office of Jonathan R. Brockman, P.C. to schedule a free consultation of your case.