A homeowner observed a group of neighborhood children playing unsupervised around an old, rusted trampoline on the homeowner’s property. The trampoline was in poor condition, with several broken springs and exposed metal edges. The homeowner decided not to intervene because they believed the children were familiar with the risks. One of the children fell and suffered a serious injury. If the injured child’s parents file a negligence lawsuit, which factor will MOST likely determine whether the homeowner owed a duty to the injured child?
Whether the homeowner personally warned the children about the dangers of the trampoline.
Whether the injury occurred with parental consent for the child to play near the trampoline.
Whether the children were trespassing on the homeowner’s property without permission.
Whether the trampoline posed a foreseeable risk of harm to the children.
In negligence cases, duty is a legal obligation owed to another party. When children are involved, the standard of care is heightened under the doctrine of 'attractive nuisance,' which requires property owners to exercise reasonable care in addressing hazards that are likely to attract children who may not fully appreciate the risks. The physical condition of the trampoline and its potential to attract children are key factors in determining whether a duty exists. Assumptions about the children’s understanding of risks are insufficient to negate the homeowner’s obligation.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is the doctrine of 'attractive nuisance'?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What constitutes 'foreseeable risk of harm'?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why might parental consent not affect duty in this situation?