The attractive nuisance doctrine generally is not
applicable to bodies of water, artificial as well as natural, in the
absence of some unusual condition or artificial feature other than the
mere water and its location.
There are numerous cases in which the attractive
nuisance doctrine has not been held not to be applicable to ponds or
reservoirs, pools of water, streams, canals, dams, ditches, culverts,
drains, cesspools or sewer pools, . . . (65 C.J.S., p. 476 et seg.
citing decisions of California, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Iowa,
Louisiana, Miss., Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
Texas, Nebraska, Wisconsin.)
In fairness to the Court of Appeals it should be
stated that the above volume of Corpus Juris Secundum was published in
1950, whereas its decision was promulgated on September 30, 1949.
The reason why a swimming pool or pond or reservoir
of water is not considered an attractive nuisance was lucidly explained
by the Indiana Appellate Court as follows:
Nature has created streams, lakes and pools which
attract children. Lurking in their waters is always the danger of
drowning. Against this danger children are early instructed so that they
are sufficiently presumed to know the danger; and if the owner of
private property creates an artificial pool on his own property, merely
duplicating the work of nature without adding any new danger, . . . (he)
is not liable because of having created an "attractive nuisance."
Anderson vs. Reith-Riley Const. Co., N. E., 2nd, 184, 185; 112 Ind.
App., 170.
No comments:
Post a Comment