17 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1937–2012 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Fitch v. Selwyn Village, Inc.green2 sentences1998App. at 644, 369 S.E.2d at 391; conditions diverting the injured party’s attention, Walker, 251 N.C. at 808 , 112 S.E.2d at 553 ; known or knowable criminal activity, Murrow v. Daniels, 321 N.C. 494, 500-01 , 364 S.E.2d 392, 398-99 (1988); and the attractive-nuisance doctrine, Fitch, 234 N.C. at 635 , 68 S.E.2d at 257 . 1998App. at 644, 369 S.E.2d at 391; conditions diverting the injured party’s attention, Walker, 251 N.C. at 808 , 112 S.E.2d at 553 ; known or knowable criminal activity, Murrow v. Daniels, 321 N.C. 494, 500-01 , 364 S.E.2d 392, 398-99 (1988); and the attractive-nuisance doctrine, Fitch, 234 N.C. at 635 , 68 S.E.2d at 257 . | 2 | 4 |
Broadway v. Blythe Industries, Inc.green2 sentences1997More recently, our Supreme Court in Broadway v. Blythe Industries, Inc., 313 N.C. 150, 154 , 326 S.E.2d 266, 269 (1985), set *652 forth the elements of the attractive nuisance doctrine adopted from the Restatement (Second) of Torts 333 (1965). 1997More recently, our Supreme Court in Broadway v. Blythe Industries, Inc., 313 N.C. 150, 154 , 326 S.E.2d 266, 269 (1985), set *652 forth the elements of the attractive nuisance doctrine adopted from the Restatement (Second) of Torts 333 (1965). | 2 | 2 |
Briscoe v. Henderson Lighting & Power Co.green2 sentences1997The rule of the attractive nuisance doctrine was explained earlier by our Supreme Court in Briscoe v. Lighting & Power Co., 148 N.C. 396, 411 , 62 S.E. 600, 606 (1908): It must be conceded that the liability for injuries to children sustained by reason of dangerous conditions on one’s premises is recognized and enforced in cases in which no such liability accrues to adults. 1997The rule of the attractive nuisance doctrine was explained earlier by our Supreme Court in Briscoe v. Lighting & Power Co., 148 N.C. 396, 411 , 62 S.E. 600, 606 (1908): It must be conceded that the liability for injuries to children sustained by reason of dangerous conditions on one’s premises is recognized and enforced in cases in which no such liability accrues to adults. | 1 | 4 |
Lanier v. North Carolina State Highway Commissiongreen2 sentences2011The attractive nuisance doctrine operates as "an exception to the general rule regarding the liability of landowners for injuries sustained on the *745 premises by trespassers. " Lanier v. North Carolina State Highway Com., 31 N.C.App. 304, 310 , 229 S.E.2d 321, 324 (1976) (emphasis added). 2011The attractive nuisance doctrine operates as "an exception to the general rule regarding the liability of landowners for injuries sustained on the *745 premises by trespassers. " Lanier v. North Carolina State Highway Com., 31 N.C.App. 304, 310 , 229 S.E.2d 321, 324 (1976) (emphasis added). | 1 | 3 |
Dean v. Wilson Construction Companygreen2 sentences1997In determining whether the defendant was negligent under the attractive nuisance doctrine, the Court first noted that “ ‘[T]he attractive nuisance doctrine is designed to protect “small children” or “children of tender age.’ ” Id. at 311 , 229 S.E.2d at 325 (quoting Dean v. Construction Co., 251 N.C. 581, 588 , 111 S.E.2d 827, 832 (1960)). 1997In determining whether the defendant was negligent under the attractive nuisance doctrine, the Court first noted that “ ‘[T]he attractive nuisance doctrine is designed to protect “small children” or “children of tender age.’ ” Id. at 311 , 229 S.E.2d at 325 (quoting Dean v. Construction Co., 251 N.C. 581, 588 , 111 S.E.2d 827, 832 (1960)). | 1 | 3 |
Hedgepath v. City of Durhamgreen2 sentences2011Hedgepath v. City of Durham, 223 N.C. 822, 823 , 28 S.E.2d 503, 504-05 (1944)[.] Id. at 307-08, 506 S.E.2d at 293-94 . 2011Hedgepath v. City of Durham, 223 N.C. 822, 823 , 28 S.E.2d 503, 504-05 (1944)[.] Id. at 307-08, 506 S.E.2d at 293-94 . | 1 | 1 |
Leonard v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.green2 sentences2011The minor-plaintiff and her mother brought a claim on behalf of the minor-plaintiff alleging that "the pathway on the steep slope is a dangerous condition subjecting defendant-landowner to liability under the doctrine of attractive nuisance." Id. 2011The minor-plaintiff and her mother brought a claim on behalf of the minor-plaintiff alleging that “the pathway on the steep slope is a dangerous condition subjecting defendant landowner to liability under the doctrine of attractive nuisance.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Morris v. Coblegreen1 sentence2011See Leonard v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., 131 N.C.App. 304 , 506 S.E.2d 291 (1998), disc. review denied, 350 N.C. 97 , 528 S.E.2d 364 (1999); McCombs v. City of Asheboro, 6 N.C.App. 234 , 170 S.E.2d 169 (1969); Fitch v. Selwyn Village, Inc., 234 N.C. 632 , 68 S.E.2d 255 (1951). | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2011See Leonard v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., 131 N.C.App. 304 , 506 S.E.2d 291 (1998), disc. review denied, 350 N.C. 97 , 528 S.E.2d 364 (1999); McCombs v. City of Asheboro, 6 N.C.App. 234 , 170 S.E.2d 169 (1969); Fitch v. Selwyn Village, Inc., 234 N.C. 632 , 68 S.E.2d 255 (1951). | 1 | 1 |
Murrow v. Danielsgreen2 sentences1998App. at 644, 369 S.E.2d at 391; conditions diverting the injured party’s attention, Walker, 251 N.C. at 808 , 112 S.E.2d at 553 ; known or knowable criminal activity, Murrow v. Daniels, 321 N.C. 494, 500-01 , 364 S.E.2d 392, 398-99 (1988); and the attractive-nuisance doctrine, Fitch, 234 N.C. at 635 , 68 S.E.2d at 257 . 1998App. at 644, 369 S.E.2d at 391; conditions diverting the injured party’s attention, Walker, 251 N.C. at 808 , 112 S.E.2d at 553 ; known or knowable criminal activity, Murrow v. Daniels, 321 N.C. 494, 500-01 , 364 S.E.2d 392, 398-99 (1988); and the attractive-nuisance doctrine, Fitch, 234 N.C. at 635 , 68 S.E.2d at 257 . | 1 | 1 |
Benton Ex Rel. Benton v. Montaguegreen2 sentences1982We believe these cases are distinguishable in that, while the defendants therein did not create or maintain the dangerous conditions on their land, they “knowingly suffered [the dangerous conditions] to continue.” Benton v. Montague, 253 N.C. 695, 704 , 117 S.E. 2d 771, 777 (1961). 1982We believe these cases are distinguishable in that, while the defendants therein did not create or maintain the dangerous conditions on their land, they “knowingly suffered [the dangerous conditions] to continue.” Benton v. Montague, 253 N.C. 695, 704 , 117 S.E. 2d 771, 777 (1961). | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Sprinklegreen2 sentences1982See Walker v. Sprinkle, 267 N.C. 626 , 148 S.E. 2d 631 (1966); Brannon v. Sprinkle, 207 N.C. 398 , 177 S.E. 114 (1934). 1982See Walker v. Sprinkle, 267 N.C. 626 , 148 S.E. 2d 631 (1966); Brannon v. Sprinkle, 207 N.C. 398 , 177 S.E. 114 (1934). | 1 | 1 |
Campbell v. . Laundrygreen2 sentences1960See 1 N.C.L.R. 162, “Limitations of the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine,” where the Briscoe case is discussed in detail, and Campbell v. Laundry, 190 N.C. 649 , 130 S.E. 638 , where Varser, J., citing the Briscoe case, stated that this Court was not disposed to extend the so-called attractive nuisance doctrine. 1960See 1 N.C.L.R. 162, “Limitations of the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine,” where the Briscoe case is discussed in detail, and Campbell v. Laundry, 190 N.C. 649 , 130 S.E. 638 , where Varser, J., citing the Briscoe case, stated that this Court was not disposed to extend the so-called attractive nuisance doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
Railroad Co. v. Stoutgreen2 sentences1937See Sioux City & Pacific Railroad Company v. Stone, 17 Wall., 657 , 21 L. 1937See Sioux City & Pacific Railroad Company v. Stone, 17 Wall., 657 , 21 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McCombs v. City of Asheboro
green
2 sentences2011App. 234 , 170 S.E.2d 169 (1969), the second case cited by defendant in support of its argument, is hot helpful to the analysis of a landowner’s duty as to natural conditions, as it addressed the defendant’s duty and the application of the attractive nuisance doctrine in the context of an injury caused by a manmade artificial condition — a ditch excavated by the defendant for placement of a sewer line. . 1978App. 304 , 229 S.E. 2d 321 (1976), stated at pp. 310 and 311: “ ‘Generally, the attractive nuisance doctrine is applicable when, and only when, the following elements are present: (1) The instrumentality or condition must be dangerous in itself, that is, it must be an agency which is likely to, or probably will, result in injury to those attracted by, and coming into contact with, it. (2) It must be attractive and alluring, or enticing, to young children. (3) The children must have been incapable, by reason of their youth, of comprehending the danger involved. (4) The instrumentality or condit | 3 | 1976–2011 |
Walker v. County of Randolph
red
2 sentences1998App. at 644, 369 S.E.2d at 391; conditions diverting the injured party’s attention, Walker, 251 N.C. at 808 , 112 S.E.2d at 553 ; known or knowable criminal activity, Murrow v. Daniels, 321 N.C. 494, 500-01 , 364 S.E.2d 392, 398-99 (1988); and the attractive-nuisance doctrine, Fitch, 234 N.C. at 635 , 68 S.E.2d at 257 . 1998App. at 644, 369 S.E.2d at 391; conditions diverting the injured party’s attention, Walker, 251 N.C. at 808 , 112 S.E.2d at 553 ; known or knowable criminal activity, Murrow v. Daniels, 321 N.C. 494, 500-01 , 364 S.E.2d 392, 398-99 (1988); and the attractive-nuisance doctrine, Fitch, 234 N.C. at 635 , 68 S.E.2d at 257 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Hawkins v. Houser
green
2 sentences1997Id. at 269 , 371 S.E.2d at 299 . 1997Id. at 269 , 371 S.E.2d at 299 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Coggins v. Hanchette
green
2 sentences1985As the Supreme Court of Connecticut explained: Section 384 of the Restatement (Second), 2 Torts, states that “[o]ne who on behalf of the possessor of land erects a structure or creates any other condition on the land is subject to the same liability, and enjoys the same freedom from liability, as though he were the possessor of the land, for physical harm caused to others upon and outside of the land by the dangerous character of the structure or other condi *155 tion while the work is in his charge.” (Emphasis added.) Accord, Coggins v. Hanchette, 52 Cal. 2d 67, 74 , 338 P. 2d 379 ; Dishingto 1985As the Supreme Court of Connecticut explained: Section 384 of the Restatement (Second), 2 Torts, states that “[o]ne who on behalf of the possessor of land erects a structure or creates any other condition on the land is subject to the same liability, and enjoys the same freedom from liability, as though he were the possessor of the land, for physical harm caused to others upon and outside of the land by the dangerous character of the structure or other condi *155 tion while the work is in his charge.” (Emphasis added.) Accord, Coggins v. Hanchette, 52 Cal. 2d 67, 74 , 338 P. 2d 379 ; Dishingto | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Brannon v. . Sprinkle
green
2 sentences1982See Walker v. Sprinkle, 267 N.C. 626 , 148 S.E. 2d 631 (1966); Brannon v. Sprinkle, 207 N.C. 398 , 177 S.E. 114 (1934). 1982See Walker v. Sprinkle, 267 N.C. 626 , 148 S.E. 2d 631 (1966); Brannon v. Sprinkle, 207 N.C. 398 , 177 S.E. 114 (1934). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Lovin v. Town of Hamlet
green
2 sentences1981Lovin v. Hamlet, 243 N.C. 399 , 90 S.E. 2d 760 (1956). 1981Lovin v. Hamlet, 243 N.C. 399 , 90 S.E. 2d 760 (1956). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Ford Ex Rel. Ford v. Blythe Bros.
green
2 sentences1960There being no evidence that Hylton’s death was caused by the wilful or wanton negligence of defendant, plaintiff frankly bases her alleged right to recover on the so-called attractive nuisance doctrine, citing Ford v. Blythe Brothers Co., 242 N.C. 347 , 87 S.E. 2d 879 , where Denny, J., quotes (with approval) from Judge Connor’s opinion in Briscoe v. Lighting and Power Co., 148 N.C. 396 , 62 S.E. 600 , 19 L.R.A. 1960There being no evidence that Hylton’s death was caused by the wilful or wanton negligence of defendant, plaintiff frankly bases her alleged right to recover on the so-called attractive nuisance doctrine, citing Ford v. Blythe Brothers Co., 242 N.C. 347 , 87 S.E. 2d 879 , where Denny, J., quotes (with approval) from Judge Connor’s opinion in Briscoe v. Lighting and Power Co., 148 N.C. 396 , 62 S.E. 600 , 19 L.R.A. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Barlow v. . Gurney
green
2 sentences1954It is, therefore, not negligence per se to maintain an unenclosed pond, pool, lake, or reservoir on one’s premises,” citing Barlow v. Gurney, 224 N.C. 223 , 29 S.E. 2d 681 , and Hedgepath v. Durham, 223 N.C. 1954It is, therefore, not negligence per se to maintain an unenclosed pond, pool, lake, or reservoir on one’s premises,” citing Barlow v. Gurney, 224 N.C. 223 , 29 S.E. 2d 681 , and Hedgepath v. Durham, 223 N.C. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.