attractive nuisance doctrine in New York

1960Co. ( 145 N. Y. 301 ) and reiterated in Morse v. Buffalo Tank Corp. ( 280 N. Y. 110, 115 ) “ ‘ that the so-called doctrine of attractive nuisance does not apply in New York, and that the only duty which an owner of land owes to a trespasser or bare licensee is to abstain from affirmative acts of negligence or not to injure intentionally such person.’ ” In Runkel v. City of New York (supra) some 50 days before the building collapsed, the City Building Inspector examined the building, found that it was in imminent danger of collapse and recommended that it be made secure or demolished at once; t

1954Co., 145 N. Y. 301 ) is that the so-called doctrine of attractive nuisance does not apply in New York, and that the only duty which an owner of land owes to a trespasser or bare licensee is to abstain from affirmative acts of negligence or not to injure intentionally such person.” In the Walsh case just cited, at page 307, we pointed out that the turntable “ was not of the nature of a trap for the unwary ”.

1952Plaintiff concedes that the doctrine of attractive nuisance does not apply in New York State, but bases his position mainly on such cases as Parnell v. Holland Furnace Co. ( 234 App. Div. 567 , affd. 260 N. Y. 604 ); Bowers v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co. ( 282 N. Y. 442 ), and Boylhart v. DiMarco & Reimann, Inc. ( 270 N. Y. 217 ).

1940(Parnell v. Holland Furnace Co., 234 App. Div. 567, 570 ; affd., 260 N. Y. 604 .) The “ little girl Kelly,” who invited the plaintiff to accompany her to the roof and who was conceded to be a tenant of the defendant, testified that she “ went up there after school mostly every day ” and that “ there were other children up there on the roof playing.” Although it is true that the doctrine of attractive nuisance does not apply in this State (Morse v. Buffalo Tank Corp., supra, p. 115) the jury was “ entitled to take into consideration the well-known propensities of children to climb about and pla

1952Plaintiff concedes that the doctrine of attractive nuisance does not apply in New York State, but bases his position mainly on such cases as Parnell v. Holland Furnace Co. ( 234 App. Div. 567 , affd. 260 N. Y. 604 ); Bowers v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co. ( 282 N. Y. 442 ), and Boylhart v. DiMarco & Reimann, Inc. ( 270 N. Y. 217 ).

1940(Parnell v. Holland Furnace Co., 234 App. Div. 567, 570 ; affd., 260 N. Y. 604 .) The “ little girl Kelly,” who invited the plaintiff to accompany her to the roof and who was conceded to be a tenant of the defendant, testified that she “ went up there after school mostly every day ” and that “ there were other children up there on the roof playing.” Although it is true that the doctrine of attractive nuisance does not apply in this State (Morse v. Buffalo Tank Corp., supra, p. 115) the jury was “ entitled to take into consideration the well-known propensities of children to climb about and pla

1964Co., 279 N. Y. 54 ), this plaintiff would still be precluded from recovery.

1960Corp. ( 273 App. Div. 909 ) make clear that the creation of a fire is not such an act as will create liability to an infant licensee, and, it appears, even under the attractive nuisance doctrine fire is not recognized as a danger, in the absence of some other factor creating a special risk (Restatement, Torts, 2d ed., Tentative Draft No. 5, § 339, comment j).

1959Co., 120 Misc. 459, 460 , affd. 207 App. Div. 869 .) In light of the reference by the court to the doctrine of attractive nuisance, there was insufficient clarification of the doctrine, which could well have misled or confused the jury.

1959While it has been frequently stated that the general rule is that the doctrine of attractive nuisance does not apply in this State, “ A dangerous attraction in a public highway may impose liability to a child on the part of the one responsible therefor, because of failure to exercise due care although there would be no liability if the attraction were upon private premises where the child had no right to go ” ([emphasis supplied] Tierney v. New York Dugan Bros., 288 N. Y. 16,19 ; see Long v. City of Dunkirk, 260 N. Y. 599 ; MysTiwiee V.

1959Co., 120 Misc. 459, 460 , affd. 207 App. Div. 869 .) In light of the reference by the court to the doctrine of attractive nuisance, there was insufficient clarification of the doctrine, which could well have misled or confused the jury.

1959Lowenthal Co., 280 App. Div. 852 ; Gibaldi v. South Brooklyn Sav.

1954We spoke similarly with respect to the private bridge in Cusick v. Adams ( 115 N. Y. 55, 60 ). *564 In Kingsland v. Erie Co. Agricultural Soc. ( 298 N. Y. 409 ), where a boy was injured by the explosion of a bomb, we held (pp. 423-424): “ The fact that the boys may have been trespassers on the fairgrounds is immaterial, since there was sufficient evidence that the article which caused the injury was * inherently dangerous ’.

1954We spoke similarly with respect to the private bridge in Cusick v. Adams ( 115 N. Y. 55, 60 ). *564 In Kingsland v. Erie Co. Agricultural Soc. ( 298 N. Y. 409 ), where a boy was injured by the explosion of a bomb, we held (pp. 423-424): “ The fact that the boys may have been trespassers on the fairgrounds is immaterial, since there was sufficient evidence that the article which caused the injury was * inherently dangerous ’.

1952As recently as Carbone v. Mackchil Realty Corp. ( 296 N. Y. 154, 156 ) the Walsh case was said never to have been questioned in the Court of Appeals.

1952Plaintiff concedes that the doctrine of attractive nuisance does not apply in New York State, but bases his position mainly on such cases as Parnell v. Holland Furnace Co. ( 234 App. Div. 567 , affd. 260 N. Y. 604 ); Bowers v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co. ( 282 N. Y. 442 ), and Boylhart v. DiMarco & Reimann, Inc. ( 270 N. Y. 217 ).

1952Plaintiff concedes that the doctrine of attractive nuisance does not apply in New York State, but bases his position mainly on such cases as Parnell v. Holland Furnace Co. ( 234 App. Div. 567 , affd. 260 N. Y. 604 ); Bowers v. City Bank Farmers Trust Co. ( 282 N. Y. 442 ), and Boylhart v. DiMarco & Reimann, Inc. ( 270 N. Y. 217 ).