Attractive Nuisance: a More Flexible Approach

'RESTATEMENT, ToRTS §§ 334-339 (1934)'Id. § 333. 'Sioux City & Pac. R.R. v. Stout, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 657 (873), was the first case to articulate the doctrine in this country, although the Court cited two, Connecticut cases, Birge v. Gardiner, 19 Conn. 507 (1849) and Daley v. Norwich & W.R.R., 26 Conn. 591 (1858), and Lynch v. Nurdin, I QB. 29, 113 Eng. Rep. 1o41 (141), as "authorities" for its decision. The term attractive nuisance belies the true nature of the doctrine in that it is not necessary for liability that the instrumentality or condition be a nuisance in the legal sense or that the trespass be induced by its attractiveness. The term arose as a result of the now dicarded "invitation" or "allurement? requirement. See note 23 infra. See RESTATEMENT, ToRTs § 339 (1934). See generally 65 CJ.S. Negligence § 29 (1950) ; 38 Am. Jur. Negligence §§ -42157 (1941) ; Annot., 36 A.L.R. x, 34 (19±5); Annot-, 39 A.L.R. 482, 486 (925) Annot., 45 A.L.R. 982 (1926) 5 Annot., 53 A.L.R. 1328, 1344 (1928)5 Annot., 6o A.L.R. 1424, 1444. (1929). See also PROSSER, TORTS § 76, at 438-445 (2ded. x955) i 2 HARPER & JAMES, TORTS § 27.5 (1956); Eldredge, Tort Liability to Trespassers, 12 TEMP. L.Q 32 (1937); Green, Landowner v. Intruder; Intruder v. Landowner. Basis of Responsibility It; Tort, 21 MICH. L. REV. 495 (1923)i Green, Landowners' Responsibility to Children, 27 TEXAS L. REV. 1 (1948) ; Hudson, The Turntable Cases In the Federal Courts, 36 HARv. L. REV. 826 (1923) ; James, Tort Liability of Occupiers of Land: Duties Owed to Trestassers, 63 YALE L.J. 144. (1953); Smith, Liability of Landowners to Children Entering Without Permission, ii HARV. L. REv. 349, 434 (1898). 'The doctrine is still rejected by eight states. See PROSSER, TORTS § 76 at 439, n.22 (2d ed. z955). Various reasons have been asserted for rejecting the doctrine. It is argued that, carried to an extreme, it would amount to insurance on children, Bottum's Adm'r v. Hawks, 84 Vt. 370, 79 At. 858 (1911) 5 that it shifts the duty of caring for children from the parents to the public, Hannan v. Ehrlich, 1o2 Ohio St. 176, 131 N.E. 504