A man owns a large fenced-in yard with a pool inside. There is a visible 'No Trespassing' sign posted on the gate. One day, a neighbor’s child enters the yard without permission to retrieve a ball and falls into the pool, resulting in injuries. The man was home at the time but did not witness the incident. Under a negligence framework, which of the following factors is most critical in determining the man’s duty of care to the child?
Whether the child’s parents were negligent in failing to supervise the child adequately.
Whether the pool was an attractive nuisance that required additional precautions against child trespassers.
Whether the 'No Trespassing' sign absolved the property owner of responsibility for injuries to trespassers.
Whether the property owner was aware the child was trespassing at the time of the incident.
The correct answer focuses on whether the owner should have foreseen that children could trespass onto the property despite the sign and whether appropriate precautions, such as securing the pool, were taken. This aligns with the attractive nuisance doctrine, which imposes a heightened duty of care when a property contains features dangerous to children who are likely to trespass. Other answers are incorrect because they either misstate the law, rely on incorrect legal principles (like strict liability not applicable here), or omit the necessary analysis of foreseeability central to a duty question.
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 attractive nuisance doctrine?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does a property owner's duty of care vary for adults compared to children?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Can a 'No Trespassing' sign protect a property owner from liability?