attractive nuisance doctrine in Pennsylvania

1937In our opinion what our Supreme Court said in Colligen et al. v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 301 Pa. 87, 92 , 151 A. 699 , where a ten year old boy procured a *97 ladder and climbed into a sheet-iron enclosed electrical transformer nine feet high and was injured, is applicable here: “It is not sufficient that the instrumentality or condition may be a source of danger to children, but it must be of such a nature that danger to children is reasonably to be apprehended; and in the absence of circumstances indicating to the owner or person in charge a reasonable likelihood of danger, the doctrine o

1937In our opinion what our Supreme Court said in Colligen et al. v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 301 Pa. 87, 92 , 151 A. 699 , where a ten year old boy procured a *97 ladder and climbed into a sheet-iron enclosed electrical transformer nine feet high and was injured, is applicable here: “It is not sufficient that the instrumentality or condition may be a source of danger to children, but it must be of such a nature that danger to children is reasonably to be apprehended; and in the absence of circumstances indicating to the owner or person in charge a reasonable likelihood of danger, the doctrine o

1951Prior to Thompson v. Reading Co., 343 Pa. 585 , 23 A. 2d 729 , the element of allurement was often considered essential to recovery under the attractive nuisance doctrine.

1951Prior to Thompson v. Reading Co., 343 Pa. 585 , 23 A. 2d 729 , the element of allurement was often considered essential to recovery under the attractive nuisance doctrine.

1998In support of his argument, Kamaratos relies upon Gallagher v. Frederick, 366 Pa. 450 , 77 A.2d 427 (1951), where a minor plaintiff sought recovery for injuries sustained when he was burned by flames from a bonfire which was started by neighborhood children who were playing on defendants’ vacant lot.

1998In support of his argument, Kamaratos relies upon Gallagher v. Frederick, 366 Pa. 450 , 77 A.2d 427 (1951), where a minor plaintiff sought recovery for injuries sustained when he was burned by flames from a bonfire which was started by neighborhood children who were playing on defendants’ vacant lot.

1993Heller v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 576 F. Supp. 6 (E.D.

1982All five requirements must be present in order to hold the possessor of land liable: Jesko v. Turk, 421 Pa. 434 , 219 A. 2d 591 (1966).

1982All five requirements must be present in order to hold the possessor of land liable: Jesko v. Turk, 421 Pa. 434 , 219 A. 2d 591 (1966).

1971In Dugan v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 387 Pa. 25 , 127 A. 2d 343 , it was said that the Restatement rule supersedes and supplants the doctrine of attractive nuisance and the playground rule.

1971In Dugan v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 387 Pa. 25 , 127 A. 2d 343 , it was said that the Restatement rule supersedes and supplants the doctrine of attractive nuisance and the playground rule.

1943An owner is never held negligent for failure to anticipate injury to children or adults from appliances not dangerous nor likely to become so.” In Dornick v. The Wierton Coal Co., 109 Pa. Superior Ct. 400 , 167 A. 617 , where two boys were drowned in a reservoir situated close to a playground, the court said (p. 404): “Nor in our view, does this case come within the attractive nuisance doctrine, as the reservoir was not inherently dangerous.

1943An owner is never held negligent for failure to anticipate injury to children or adults from appliances not dangerous nor likely to become so.” In Dornick v. The Wierton Coal Co., 109 Pa. Superior Ct. 400 , 167 A. 617 , where two boys were drowned in a reservoir situated close to a playground, the court said (p. 404): “Nor in our view, does this case come within the attractive nuisance doctrine, as the reservoir was not inherently dangerous.

1941Co. v. McWhirter, 77 Tex. 356, 360 , 14 S. W. 26 , 19 Am.

1941Co. v. McWhirter, 77 Tex. 356, 360 , 14 S. W. 26 , 19 Am.

1941Trust Co., supra, p. 379: “We have been unable to discover any case in this Commonwealth in which the rule has been extended beyond vacant lots and other open grounds.” The mere fact that a trespasser is a child will not of itself impose on the possessor or owner of land the duty to keep his premises safe: Pietros v. Hecla Coal & Coke Co., 118 Pa. Superior Ct. 453 , 189 A. 119 .

1939In United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. Britt, 258 U. S. 268 , Mr. Justice Holmes said (p. 274) : “The doctrine needs very careful statement not to make an unjust and impracticable requirement. . . .

1939The tendency of those courts which recognize the attractive nuisance doctrine is to confine, rather than enlarge, its scope: Cox v. Alabama Water Co., 216 Ala. 35 ; Lucas v. Hammond, 150 Miss. 369 .

1939The tendency of those courts which recognize the attractive nuisance doctrine is to confine, rather than enlarge, its scope: Cox v. Alabama Water Co., 216 Ala. 35 ; Lucas v. Hammond, 150 Miss. 369 .

1932In the ease of Harlan v. Peaveley, 224 Ky. 338 (1928), it was held, in a case practically identical with the present one, that an ash dump did not constitute an attractive nuisance, and, therefore, that the owner was not liable for an injury to a child who wandered on the dump. 3.