5 ms·

>obviously responsible for (a child drowns in your pool because you didn't put up a fence) Does this also count if you didn't invite the child and the terrain

>obviously responsible for (a child drowns in your pool because you didn't put up a fence) Does this also count if you didn't invite the child and the terrain was clearly marked as your property? If yes, this is pretty surprising and non-obvious to me. Do i misunderstand something? For me, the obvious example is bobby trapping your property and hurting a fireman who came to put out a fire.

cratermoon 2y ago
In most of the US, the attractive nuisance doctrine applies, unfortunately. And nearly anything can be considered an attractive nuisance, or at least there's probably a lawyer out there willing to take the case and cost the landowner money.
- b112 2y ago
  Quite so. I get doubly annoyed when people have heated pools by lakes, the lake is clearly not fenced, but that fence had better be on your pool. And many pools have a shallow end, and many homeowners have long docks, which are in deep water. Yet docks aren't required to be fenced here.
crazygringo 2y ago
Yes, it absolutely does count. You might indeed consider it non-obvious and surprising -- I certainly did when I first learned of it growing up here. Another classic example is that a thief can sue you if they fall through rotting floorboards on your porch and break their legs. But we've collectively decided, as a society, that property owners are not just prohibited from booby trapping their properties, but are required to actively maintain them in a safe condition according to reasonable standards. If there's something a reasonable person would know was a safety risk on their property, they'll be held liable if they didn't fix it and somebody injured themselves because of it. The thinking is basically -- kids will run around onto other people's property, people get lost, etc. We know kids go where they're not supposed to. Nobody should be risking injury or death just because of that, if and when reasonable safety precautions by the property owner could have prevented that. In other words, we live in a society, and we have a certain minimal level of active duty of care towards others. Owning a piece of property comes with rights but also responsibilities.
- stragies 2y ago
  Don't at least the parents of the kid that drowned in your pool while trespassing on your land get at least a charge of "criminal negligence" against them? IANAL, but aren't kid's <14 supposed to be supervised at all times by an adult? And 14+ years old that drowns in a pool for inability to swim is also something that should be blamable on the parents, not the pool owner. Edit with clarifications after comments: I meant, parent's should be supervising their young kids, or take the risk/blame, if something happens to the kids while they aren't. (I roamed 'unsupervised' in fields and forest at young age with friends, and enjoyed it. But I was also taught to look where I step, and how to swim)
  - tylermw 2y ago
    > but aren't kid's <14 supposed to be supervised at all times by an adult No. The age which supervision is required varies by jurisdiction. > And 14+ years old that drowns in a pool for inability to swim is also something that should be blamable on the parents, not the pool owner. There's no law stating you need to teach your kids to swim.
  - gampleman 2y ago
    > IANAL, but aren't kid's <14 supposed to be supervised at all times by an adult? Not in most jurisdictions (thanks God). That's a terrible idea for raising kids.
  - chrisBob 2y ago
    Being a parent is hard. I would say that half of the US thinks parents are the problem with kids these days and that a good kid should "spend time outside in the neighborhood like we used to", and then the other half will call the police if your child is out of sight because "aren't kid's <14 supposed to be supervised at all times by an adult?"
  - vundercind 2y ago
    > aren't kid's <14 supposed to be supervised at all times by an adult Hell no. A world where a nine or ten year old can’t go roam the neighborhood on bikes with some friends unless adults accompany them would be a dystopia. I know there are occasionally news stories about very-stupid harassment of parents for parenting correctly, but thank god it’s still not the norm.

cratermoon 2y ago

In most of the US, the attractive nuisance doctrine applies, unfortunately. And nearly anything can be considered an attractive nuisance, or at least there's probably a lawyer out there willing to take the case and cost the landowner money.

b112 2y ago
Quite so. I get doubly annoyed when people have heated pools by lakes, the lake is clearly not fenced, but that fence had better be on your pool. And many pools have a shallow end, and many homeowners have long docks, which are in deep water. Yet docks aren't required to be fenced here.

crazygringo 2y ago

Yes, it absolutely does count. You might indeed consider it non-obvious and surprising -- I certainly did when I first learned of it growing up here. Another classic example is that a thief can sue you if they fall through rotting floorboards on your porch and break their legs. But we've collectively decided, as a society, that property owners are not just prohibited from booby trapping their properties, but are required to actively maintain them in a safe condition according to reasonable standards. If there's something a reasonable person would know was a safety risk on their property, they'll be held liable if they didn't fix it and somebody injured themselves because of it. The thinking is basically -- kids will run around onto other people's property, people get lost, etc. We know kids go where they're not supposed to. Nobody should be risking injury or death just because of that, if and when reasonable safety precautions by the property owner could have prevented that. In other words, we live in a society, and we have a certain minimal level of active duty of care towards others. Owning a piece of property comes with rights but also responsibilities.

stragies 2y ago
Don't at least the parents of the kid that drowned in your pool while trespassing on your land get at least a charge of "criminal negligence" against them? IANAL, but aren't kid's <14 supposed to be supervised at all times by an adult? And 14+ years old that drowns in a pool for inability to swim is also something that should be blamable on the parents, not the pool owner. Edit with clarifications after comments: I meant, parent's should be supervising their young kids, or take the risk/blame, if something happens to the kids while they aren't. (I roamed 'unsupervised' in fields and forest at young age with friends, and enjoyed it. But I was also taught to look where I step, and how to swim)
- tylermw 2y ago
  > but aren't kid's <14 supposed to be supervised at all times by an adult No. The age which supervision is required varies by jurisdiction. > And 14+ years old that drowns in a pool for inability to swim is also something that should be blamable on the parents, not the pool owner. There's no law stating you need to teach your kids to swim.
- gampleman 2y ago
  > IANAL, but aren't kid's <14 supposed to be supervised at all times by an adult? Not in most jurisdictions (thanks God). That's a terrible idea for raising kids.
- chrisBob 2y ago
  Being a parent is hard. I would say that half of the US thinks parents are the problem with kids these days and that a good kid should "spend time outside in the neighborhood like we used to", and then the other half will call the police if your child is out of sight because "aren't kid's <14 supposed to be supervised at all times by an adult?"
- vundercind 2y ago
  > aren't kid's <14 supposed to be supervised at all times by an adult Hell no. A world where a nine or ten year old can’t go roam the neighborhood on bikes with some friends unless adults accompany them would be a dystopia. I know there are occasionally news stories about very-stupid harassment of parents for parenting correctly, but thank god it’s still not the norm.