What is the 'Attractive Nuisance' Doctrine in Premises Liability Cases?

Children are naturally curious. This means that even older kids are drawn to things that seem fun, even when those things aren’t safe. A trampoline in an open yard, an old shed on the back of a property, or an unfenced pool can all catch their attention in an instant and inspire them to check it out.

Unfortunately, sometimes these attractions are dangerous and injuries result: according to the CDC, an average of 11 children drown in swimming pool accidents every day in the USA, and the Consumer Protection Safety Commission reports that nearly 100,000 trampoline-related injuries happen each year.

In North Carolina, some property owners may be held liable when a dangerous area or feature is left accessible to children. That’s where the “attractive nuisance” doctrine comes into play. In this guide, we’ll explain what that doctrine means, how it works in this state, and how a personal injury lawyer can help if your child was injured.

What Is the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine?

The attractive nuisance doctrine is a legal rule that applies when a child is hurt by a dangerous condition on someone else’s property, especially when that condition is something that would naturally draw a child in. It allows injured children and their families to hold the property owner responsible, even if the child was trespassing. The idea is that kids don’t always understand the risks around them, so adults are expected to take reasonable care when something on their land might tempt a child into danger.

This rule doesn’t apply to every injury or every property. It’s usually limited to situations where the hazard was obvious to an adult, easy to fix or secure, and likely to attract children who aren’t mature enough to understand the danger. If those conditions are met, and a child gets hurt, the property owner may be legally responsible for what happened.

Common Examples of Attractive Nuisances

Hazards that seem obvious to adults can easily attract trespassing children who don’t recognize the risk. This is why property owners are expected to anticipate what might draw in a child and take reasonable steps to block access or reduce the risk of severe injury. Common examples of these attractive nuisances include:

Unguarded Swimming Pools: Backyard pools are one of the most common attractive nuisances. Even a shallow pool can pose a drowning risk to a child who falls in while unsupervised. If there’s no fence, locked gate, or pool cover in place, a young child may slip into the water without anyone noticing. This can lead to brain injury or death within minutes.
Trampolines: Trampolines are often placed in front or back yards, where they’re visible from the street. A child may try to climb on without permission, especially if no adult is around. Without safety nets or proper fencing, they can fall off the edge, collide with metal frames, or hit the ground with enough force to break bones or injure the spine.
Construction Areas: Homes under renovation or open lots with equipment are frequently left unsecured overnight or on weekends. Consequently, children may enter through gaps in fencing or climb over barriers to explore. Open trenches, sharp tools, piles of wood or bricks, and unstable structures all increase the risk of crushing injuries, slips and falls, or deep cuts.
Old Vehicles or Appliances: Abandoned vehicles, refrigerators, washing machines, and playground equipment can become hiding spots or pretend play areas. If a child crawls inside, doors can close and trap them inside, leading to suffocation. Rusted parts and broken glass can also cause serious lacerations or tetanus if not treated right away.
Ladders and Accessible Rooftops: Ladders left out near sheds, garages, or homes are easy to climb. A child may think they’re just exploring but could lose balance on the way up or down. Rooftops may also have steep pitches or loose shingles, making it easy to slip and fall. These falls can cause catastrophic injuries, including skull fractures, traumatic brain injuries, or internal bleeding.
Junk Piles or Discarded Materials: Piles of scrap wood, fencing, sheet metal, or old tires can look like fun places to explore or build forts. Children may try to lift or move objects that are too heavy or sharp, cutting them or causing spinal cord injuries. These piles can also collapse, pinning them underneath or causing injury from nails, splinters, or rusted edges.

When Does the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine Apply?

This doctrine doesn’t apply to every injury on someone’s property. Courts generally consider whether the owner could reasonably expect a child to be drawn in and whether they failed to take simple precautions to keep that child safe.

The first condition is whether the property owner knew or should’ve known that a dangerous feature existed on their land. This includes both man-made and natural hazards, although the doctrine most often applies to things that were added, built, or placed there. If the danger was obvious and something a child trespasser might find interesting, the next step is asking whether the owner could expect children to come near it.

Another key question is whether the child was too young to understand the danger. A small child doesn’t think the same way as a teenager or adult and may not recognize when something could seriously injure them. Courts also look at whether it would’ve been easy and inexpensive to fix the issue (e.g. putting up a fence or locking a gate) compared to the risk of injury. If the danger could’ve been prevented with minimal effort and the owner didn’t act, they may be found liable.

Who Does This Doctrine Protect?

The attractive nuisance doctrine is intended to protect young children who are too inexperienced to understand dangerous conditions. It recognizes that children are more likely to act on impulse and explore something that looks interesting, even if they’re not allowed to be there. Because of this, courts make an exception to the general rule that property owners aren’t responsible for injuries to trespassers.

In most attractive nuisance cases, this doctrine applies to children under a certain age. While there’s no strict cutoff, courts often look more closely at claims involving children under the age of 14. Very young children are often presumed to be unaware of danger, while older teens may be expected to know better, depending on the situation.

This rule doesn’t extend to adults or teenagers who fully grasp the risks involved. It also doesn’t apply if the child was engaged in intentional wrongdoing, like vandalism or theft. However, if the child trespasser was simply curious and wandered onto the property, the law may still protect them, even if they didn’t have permission to be there.

Does North Carolina Recognize the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine?

Yes, North Carolina recognizes the legal principles behind the attractive nuisance doctrine, but it doesn’t always use that exact name in court opinions. Instead, these cases fall under the broader rules of negligence and are guided by a five-part test rooted in both common law and state statute.

In 2021, the North Carolina General Assembly passed N.C. Gen. Stat. § 38B‑3, which outlines when a property owner may be liable if a child is injured after trespassing onto their land. Under this law, they may be held responsible if all of the following conditions apply:

The property owner knew or should’ve known children were likely to trespass;
The condition posed an unreasonable risk of death or serious harm;
The child was too young to understand the danger;
The cost or effort to fix the hazard was minor compared to the risk it posed;
The property owner failed to use reasonable care to protect children from the danger.

One major exception applies to natural bodies of water. If a child is injured by an unimproved stream, pond, or lake, the law usually won’t apply unless the owner altered it in a way that made it more attractive or dangerous to children, like adding a dock, bridge, or artificial feature that encourages play.

So, while North Carolina doesn’t always label these cases as “attractive nuisance,” the legal test and outcome are usually the same. Courts apply a detailed standard to decide whether the owner’s actions (or inaction) put a child at unnecessary risk. For parents, this means that even if a child was trespassing, there may still be legal grounds to bring a premises liability claim if the property had a hazard that should’ve been addressed.

Proving an Attractive Nuisance Claim: What Evidence Helps

When bringing an attractive nuisance claim, families must prove that the hazard was dangerous, that it could attract children, and that the property owner failed to take reasonable steps to prevent access or harm. Examples of acceptable evidence include:

Photographs of the Hazard: Clear photos of the condition, such as an open pool, unstable ladder, or abandoned refrigerator, help show that the danger was visible and accessible. These images can give a clearer picture of what the area looked like at the time of the incident.
Videos or Social Media Activity: Clips or online posts showing children near the area can help prove that the property was easy to access and likely to draw attention. This type of evidence may also show that the condition had been there for some time, and no warning signs were posted.
Witness Statements: Neighbors, family members, or anyone who saw the scene can describe how long the hazard was there and whether the owner had any reason to expect children to come near it. Witnesses may also explain what happened right before and after the injury occurred.
Medical Records and Incident Reports: Hospital records, paramedic notes, or police reports can show when and how the child was hurt. These documents help link the injury to the condition on the property and explain the extent of the harm.
Statements from Safety Professionals: A safety inspector or building expert may be able to explain how the danger could have been removed or blocked off. They can also describe what steps a reasonable owner would have taken to avoid putting children at risk.

What Damages Can Families Recover?

When a child is hurt because of an attractive nuisance, the family may be able to seek financial recovery through a premises liability law claim. This recovery isn’t limited to emergency care – it may also account for long-term effects on the child’s health, comfort, and development. While each case is different, the following types of damages are commonly pursued.

Medical Expenses: This includes the cost of emergency care, surgeries, follow-up visits, medication, and physical therapy. If the child needs long-term treatment or rehabilitation, future medical bills may also be included.
Pain and Suffering: Children who experience physical pain and emotional distress may be entitled to damages that reflect how the injury affected their daily life. This can include anxiety, trauma, or reduced enjoyment of childhood activities.
Scarring or Disfigurement: If the injury leaves lasting physical changes, the claim may include compensation for visible scars or permanent changes to the child’s appearance.
Disability or Long-Term Impairment: Some injuries may impact the child’s ability to walk, communicate, or interact with others. When the effects are expected to last, the damages may reflect how the injury could affect the child’s education, social life, or independence.
Wrongful Death: If the injury leads to a child’s death, the family may seek recovery for funeral costs, medical care provided before death, and loss of companionship. These claims are brought under North Carolina’s wrongful death statute.

Has Your Child Been Injured? Call Edwards Injury Law Now!

At Edwards Injury Law, we help parents understand their legal options and take action when a negligent property owner fails to protect their child from harm. Our personal injury attorneys take pride in offering personal, respectful service to every family we work with. While no one can undo the harm your loved one suffered, we work to make sure you have the support and compensation you need to move forward. For more information or to schedule a free initial consultation, contact our law office today.

Slip and Fall Accidents in Retail Stores: What is Their Liability?

Liability for Injuries Caused by Snow and Ice on Commercial Properties

What is the ‘Attractive Nuisance’ Doctrine in Premises Liability Cases?