Is the man-made lake an attractive nuisance in this case?

Full question:

My son was a passenger in a car driven by an unlicenced driver 16 yrs old .The driver was speeding back to a man made lake where there was an underage drinking party.The kid lost control and flipped the car.My son was killed and the 16 yr old ran away with two other teens.There have been complaints filed to the lake owners about these underage part'y's. Is the man made lake an Attractive Nuisance?

• Category: Real Property
• Subcategory: Trespassing
• Date: 04/07/2025
• State: Pennsylvania

Answer:

The attractive nuisance doctrine applies to property owners who maintain dangerous conditions likely to attract children. It requires them to take steps to warn or protect children from these dangers. Typically, this doctrine does not apply to adults. However, if a child is harmed due to an attractive nuisance and an adult tries to rescue them, the landowner may also be liable for the rescuer's injuries.

Generally, property owners are not liable for injuries to trespassers, except in cases of willful or wanton negligence. Young children, however, are treated differently under this doctrine. For example, if a child is injured in a pool or lake, whether the owner is liable depends on the child's status as a trespasser or a guest.

In evaluating liability under the attractive nuisance doctrine, courts consider:

• Whether the landowner knew or should have known that children could trespass near the hazard.
• The type of hazard and its risk of serious harm to children.
• Whether children could appreciate the risk due to their age.
• The importance of maintaining the hazardous condition.
• The burden of eliminating the hazard versus the risk of harm.
• Whether the landowner took reasonable precautions to protect children.

In your case, while the lake may attract children, it is important to note that natural bodies of water typically do not qualify as attractive nuisances unless the owner has created or maintained a dangerous condition. Courts often rule that lakes and ponds, if properly secured, do not fall under this doctrine.

In the case of Dornick et ux. v. Wierton C. Co., the court found that a reservoir, even when surrounded by a fence, was not an attractive nuisance because it was not inherently dangerous. The court emphasized that not all bodies of water can be treated as attractive nuisances, as they present common dangers that are not unique to the property owner.

Ultimately, whether the lake in question is an attractive nuisance would depend on specific circumstances, including the safety measures in place and whether the lake was inviting or accessible to children.

We recommend consulting a local attorney who can review the specifics of your case and provide tailored legal advice.