Is a property owner liable for injury to a child who was technically trespassing?

By Taylor & Ring | February 28, 2015

In most cases, for a person to have grounds to file a premises liability lawsuit in California, the person must have been lawfully on the property when the injury occurred. A customer in a store, an invited guest in a residence, a worker hired to work in a building, a visitor at a place such as an amusement park — these are all examples of someone lawfully being on a property.

Trespassing is an example of someone unlawfully being on a property, and trespassers are less likely to have grounds for a premises liability claim if an injury occurs during the trespassing. However, different considerations may apply to children, who are understood to be curious and often not fully aware of the potential consequences of going onto a dangerous property.

Years ago, California law recognized what is called the “attractive nuisance” doctrine, which placed a special responsibility on property owners to ensure that the property was safe if the owner believed that a child might enter the premises, legally or illegally. The state did away with that doctrine, but property owners must still take steps to prevent injury to a child if such injury is foreseeable.

For example, disused refrigerators pose a threat to curious and playful children who climb inside them and become trapped. If a property owner has reason to believe that a child might come onto the premises and get hurt, then the owner shouldn’t simply ignore the issue. Appropriate measures — for example, a fence, signage, removal of the dangerous condition — should be taken to prevent injury to the child.

Taylor & Ring handle premises liability claims that arise from a variety of situations, including those involving injuries to children. To learn more about this complex area of law, please see our premises liability overview.

Posted in Legal News, Premises Liability