10 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1950–2007 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Idaho 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bass v. Quinn-Robbins Co.green2 sentences2003In Nelson ex rel Nelson v. City of Rupert , this Court stated the elements necessary to sustain an attractive nuisance claim: Plaintiff has the burden of proving: (1) A structure/condition existed on the defendant's premises which the defendant knew or should have known in the exercise of ordinary care, involved a reasonably foreseeable *857 risk of attraction and harm to children; (2) The structure/condition maintained/permitted on the property was peculiarly or unusually attractive to children; (3) The structure/condition was such that the danger was not apparent to immature minds; and (4) T 2003In Nelson ex rel Nelson v. City of Rupert , this Court stated the elements necessary to sustain an attractive nuisance claim: Plaintiff has the burden of proving: (1) A structure/condition existed on the defendant's premises which the defendant knew or should have known in the exercise of ordinary care, involved a reasonably foreseeable *857 risk of attraction and harm to children; (2) The structure/condition maintained/permitted on the property was peculiarly or unusually attractive to children; (3) The structure/condition was such that the danger was not apparent to immature minds; and (4) T | 3 | 6 |
Bicandi v. Boise Payette Lumber Co.green2 sentences1994Our analysis begins with Bicandi v. Boise Payette Lumber Co., 55 Idaho 543, 551-52 , 44 P.2d 1103, 1106 (1935), where the Idaho Supreme Court held that the attractive nuisance doctrine “has application only to cases where children have been injured while on premises where they would be trespassers except for an implied invitation by something thereon which has attracted them.” This statement suggests that the hazardous condition must be the inducement for the child’s entry onto the premises. 1994Our analysis begins with Bicandi v. Boise Payette Lumber Co., 55 Idaho 543, 551-52 , 44 P.2d 1103, 1106 (1935), where the Idaho Supreme Court held that the attractive nuisance doctrine “has application only to cases where children have been injured while on premises where they would be trespassers except for an implied invitation by something thereon which has attracted them.” This statement suggests that the hazardous condition must be the inducement for the child’s entry onto the premises. | 3 | 3 |
Nelson Ex Rel. Nelson v. City of Rupertgreen2 sentences2003In Nelson ex rel Nelson v. City of Rupert , this Court stated the elements necessary to sustain an attractive nuisance claim: Plaintiff has the burden of proving: (1) A structure/condition existed on the defendant's premises which the defendant knew or should have known in the exercise of ordinary care, involved a reasonably foreseeable *857 risk of attraction and harm to children; (2) The structure/condition maintained/permitted on the property was peculiarly or unusually attractive to children; (3) The structure/condition was such that the danger was not apparent to immature minds; and (4) T 2003In Nelson ex rel Nelson v. City of Rupert , this Court stated the elements necessary to sustain an attractive nuisance claim: Plaintiff has the burden of proving: (1) A structure/condition existed on the defendant's premises which the defendant knew or should have known in the exercise of ordinary care, involved a reasonably foreseeable *857 risk of attraction and harm to children; (2) The structure/condition maintained/permitted on the property was peculiarly or unusually attractive to children; (3) The structure/condition was such that the danger was not apparent to immature minds; and (4) T | 2 | 2 |
Hughes v. Union Pacific Railroadgreen2 sentences1994In rejecting the plaintiffs argument that Restatement § 339 was adopted as Idaho law in Daniels v. Byington, 109 Idaho 365 , 707 P.2d 476 (Ct.App.1985), the Supreme Court stated, “Restatement § 339 does not state the traditional attractive nuisance doctrine, and does not reflect the law of attractive nuisance in Idaho, as set out in the Bass case.” Hughes, 114 Idaho at 469 n. 2, 757 P.2d at 1188 n. 2. 1994In rejecting the plaintiffs argument that Restatement § 339 was adopted as Idaho law in Daniels v. Byington, 109 Idaho 365 , 707 P.2d 476 (Ct.App.1985), the Supreme Court stated, “Restatement § 339 does not state the traditional attractive nuisance doctrine, and does not reflect the law of attractive nuisance in Idaho, as set out in the Bass case.” Hughes, 114 Idaho at 469 n. 2, 757 P.2d at 1188 n. 2. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Nev. Cent. R. R. Co.green2 sentences1985Bass v. Quinn-Robbins Co., 70 Idaho 308 , 216 P.2d 944 (1950), citing York v. Pacific & Northern Railway Co., 8 Idaho 574 , 69 P. 1042 (1902). 1985Idaho adopted the attractive nuisance doctrine near the turn of the century. *478 Bass v. Quinn-Robbins Co., 70 Idaho 308 , 216 P.2d 944 (1950), citing York v. Pacific & Northern Railway Co., 8 Idaho 574 , 69 P. 1042 (1902). | 1 | 2 |
York v. Pacific & Northern Railway Co.green2 sentences1985Bass v. Quinn-Robbins Co., 70 Idaho 308 , 216 P.2d 944 (1950), citing York v. Pacific & Northern Railway Co., 8 Idaho 574 , 69 P. 1042 (1902). 1985Idaho adopted the attractive nuisance doctrine near the turn of the century. *478 Bass v. Quinn-Robbins Co., 70 Idaho 308 , 216 P.2d 944 (1950), citing York v. Pacific & Northern Railway Co., 8 Idaho 574 , 69 P. 1042 (1902). | 1 | 2 |
O'GUIN v. Bingham Countygreen2 sentences2007O’Guin v. Bingham County, 139 Idaho 9, 14 , 72 P.3d 849, 854 (2003); Nelson v. City of Rupert, 128 Idaho 199, 202 , 911 P.2d 1111, 1114 (1996); Hughes v. Union Pac. 2007O’Guin v. Bingham County, 139 Idaho 9, 14 , 72 P.3d 849, 854 (2003); Nelson v. City of Rupert, 128 Idaho 199, 202 , 911 P.2d 1111, 1114 (1996); Hughes v. Union Pac. | 1 | 1 |
Ambrose Ex Rel. Ambrose v. Buhl Joint School District 412green2 sentences2003Ambrose v. Buhl Joint School Distr., 126 Idaho 581, 585 , 887 P.2d 1088, 1092 (Ct.App.1994). 2003Ambrose v. Buhl Joint School Distr., 126 Idaho 581, 585 , 887 P.2d 1088, 1092 (Ct.App.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Holland v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroadgreen2 sentences1988As stated in Holland v. Baltimore & Ohio RR Co., 431 A.2d 597, 602 (D.C. 1981), "The overwhelming weight of authority in jurisdictions across the country is that the attractive nuisance exception does not apply as a matter of law in cases where child trespassers are injured by moving trains." (Citing 19 cases.) As to the second element, the trial court noted that there was absolutely no testimony that appellant Joe Hughes was in fact attracted to the railroad property by any condition thereon. 1988As the court held in Holland v. Baltimore & Ohio RR Co., 431 A.2d 597 (D.C. 1981), accidents involving moving trains fall outside the scope of the attractive nuisance doctrine because children can understand the risk involved in intermeddling with trains. | 1 | 1 |
Carlson v. Tucson Racquet & Swim Club, Inc.green2 sentences1988The doctrine of attractive nuisance applies only "to trespassing children who, because of their youth and inexperience, are unable to appreciate the dangers created by certain artificial conditions." Guilfoyle v. Missouri, Kansas, & Texas RR Co., 812 F.2d 1290 , 1292 (10th Cir.1987) (doctrine not applicable to 14 year old); Carlson v. Tucson Racket & Swim Club, Inc., 127 Ariz. 247 , 619 P.2d 756, 758 (App. 1980), reh'g denied 1980, review denied 1980 ("Where the plaintiff is of the age and experience to appreciate the danger that produces his injury the [attractive nuisance] doctrine does not 1988The doctrine of attractive nuisance applies only "to trespassing children who, because of their youth and inexperience, are unable to appreciate the dangers created by certain artificial conditions." Guilfoyle v. Missouri, Kansas, & Texas RR Co., 812 F.2d 1290 , 1292 (10th Cir.1987) (doctrine not applicable to 14 year old); Carlson v. Tucson Racket & Swim Club, Inc., 127 Ariz. 247 , 619 P.2d 756, 758 (App. 1980), reh'g denied 1980, review denied 1980 ("Where the plaintiff is of the age and experience to appreciate the danger that produces his injury the [attractive nuisance] doctrine does not | 1 | 1 |
Joslin v. Southern Pacific Co.green2 sentences1988The doctrine of attractive nuisance applies only "to trespassing children who, because of their youth and inexperience, are unable to appreciate the dangers created by certain artificial conditions." Guilfoyle v. Missouri, Kansas, & Texas RR Co., 812 F.2d 1290 , 1292 (10th Cir.1987) (doctrine not applicable to 14 year old); Carlson v. Tucson Racket & Swim Club, Inc., 127 Ariz. 247 , 619 P.2d 756, 758 (App. 1980), reh'g denied 1980, review denied 1980 ("Where the plaintiff is of the age and experience to appreciate the danger that produces his injury the [attractive nuisance] doctrine does not 1988The doctrine of attractive nuisance applies only "to trespassing children who, because of their youth and inexperience, are unable to appreciate the dangers created by certain artificial conditions." Guilfoyle v. Missouri, Kansas, & Texas RR Co., 812 F.2d 1290 , 1292 (10th Cir.1987) (doctrine not applicable to 14 year old); Carlson v. Tucson Racket & Swim Club, Inc., 127 Ariz. 247 , 619 P.2d 756, 758 (App. 1980), reh'g denied 1980, review denied 1980 ("Where the plaintiff is of the age and experience to appreciate the danger that produces his injury the [attractive nuisance] doctrine does not | 1 | 1 |
Sanchez v. East Contra Costa Irrigation Co.green2 sentences1958Co., 205 Cal. 515, 518 [2], 271 P. 1060 ; Faylor v. Great Eastern, etc. Co., 45 Cal.App. 194, 199 , 187 P. 101 .) “The essential elements of a cause of action under the ‘hidden or concealed trap’ exception are (a) that the dangerous hazard causing death be artifically created by the owner, (b) it be so concealed as to constitute a trap, and (c) that it can be readily guarded without destroying its usefulness or placing upon the owner an undue burden.” The great weight of authority holds that the artificial character of the water hazard will not support the attractive nuisance doctrine, and has 1958Co., 205 Cal. 515, 518 [2], 271 P. 1060 ; Faylor v. Great Eastern, etc. Co., 45 Cal.App. 194, 199 , 187 P. 101 .) “The essential elements of a cause of action under the ‘hidden or concealed trap’ exception are (a) that the dangerous hazard causing death be artifically created by the owner, (b) it be so concealed as to constitute a trap, and (c) that it can be readily guarded without destroying its usefulness or placing upon the owner an undue burden.” The great weight of authority holds that the artificial character of the water hazard will not support the attractive nuisance doctrine, and has | 1 | 1 |
Mindeman v. Sanitary Districtgreen2 sentences1950See also Mindeman v. Sanitary Dist. of Chicago, 317 Ill. 529 , 148 N. E. 304 , and Wood v. Consumers Co., 334 Ill.App. 530 , 79 N.E.2d 826 . 1950See also Mindeman v. Sanitary Dist. of Chicago, 317 Ill. 529 , 148 N. E. 304 , and Wood v. Consumers Co., 334 Ill.App. 530 , 79 N.E.2d 826 . | 1 | 1 |
Wood v. Consumers Co.green2 sentences1950See also Mindeman v. Sanitary Dist. of Chicago, 317 Ill. 529 , 148 N. E. 304 , and Wood v. Consumers Co., 334 Ill.App. 530 , 79 N.E.2d 826 . 1950See also Mindeman v. Sanitary Dist. of Chicago, 317 Ill. 529 , 148 N. E. 304 , and Wood v. Consumers Co., 334 Ill.App. 530 , 79 N.E.2d 826 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jacobsen v. City of Rathdrum
green
2 sentences1996The City maintains this case is the same as Jacobsen v. City of Rathdrum, *203 in which this Court held that, because the evidence in the record indicated that the injured child was not attracted to the park by the allegedly dangerous bridge, there was insufficient evidence to support an attractive nuisance claim. 115 Idaho at 272, 766 P.2d at 742 . 1994Our Supreme Court reiterated the attractive nuisance test drawn from Bass and affirmed summary judgment on an attractive nuisance claim because, “the affidavits do not raise genuine issues of material fact as to whether the child was attracted to the park by the bridge.” Jacobsen, 115 Idaho at 272 , 766 P.2d at 742 . | 2 | 1994–1996 |
Daniels v. Byington
neutral
2 sentences1994In rejecting the plaintiffs argument that Restatement § 339 was adopted as Idaho law in Daniels v. Byington, 109 Idaho 365 , 707 P.2d 476 (Ct.App.1985), the Supreme Court stated, “Restatement § 339 does not state the traditional attractive nuisance doctrine, and does not reflect the law of attractive nuisance in Idaho, as set out in the Bass case.” Hughes, 114 Idaho at 469 n. 2, 757 P.2d at 1188 n. 2. 1994In rejecting the plaintiffs argument that Restatement § 339 was adopted as Idaho law in Daniels v. Byington, 109 Idaho 365 , 707 P.2d 476 (Ct.App.1985), the Supreme Court stated, “Restatement § 339 does not state the traditional attractive nuisance doctrine, and does not reflect the law of attractive nuisance in Idaho, as set out in the Bass case.” Hughes, 114 Idaho at 469 n. 2, 757 P.2d at 1188 n. 2. | 2 | 1988–1994 |
Gould v. Hill
green
2 sentences1988Therefore, while I do not concur in the majority opinion in so far as it refuses to apply the attractive nuisance doctrine to the case at bar, inasmuch as the complaint states a cause of action based upon that doctrine, I concur in the conclusion of the majority, that the respondents are entitled to recover and to that end that the judgment ought to be affirmed, and I base my concurrence on the rule announced in Gould v. Hill, 43 Ida. 93 , 251 Pac. 167 , to the effect that a plaintiff may recover if his complaint states any cause of action entitled him to relief, either at law or in equity. (e 1988Therefore, while I do not concur in the majority opinion in so far as it refuses to apply the attractive nuisance doctrine to the case at bar, inasmuch as the complaint states a cause of action based upon that doctrine, I concur in the conclusion of the majority, that the respondents are entitled to recover and to that end that the judgment ought to be affirmed, and I base my concurrence on the rule announced in Gould v. Hill, 43 Ida. 93 , 251 Pac. 167 , to the effect that a plaintiff may recover if his complaint states any cause of action entitled him to relief, either at law or in equity. (e | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Guilfoyle v. Missouri, Kansas, And Texas Railroad Company
green
2 sentences1988The doctrine of attractive nuisance applies only “to trespassing children who, because of their youth and inexperience, are unable to appreciate the dangers created by certain artificial conditions.” Guilfoyle v. Missouri, Kansas, & Texas RR Co., 812 F.2d 1290 , 1292 (10th Cir.1987) (doctrine not applicable to 14 year old); Carlson v. Tucson Racket & Swim Club, Inc., 127 Ariz. 247 , 619 P.2d 756, 758 (App. 1980), reh’g denied 1980, review denied 1980 (“Where the plaintiff is of the age and experience to appreciate the danger that produces his injury the [attractive nuisance] doctrine does not 1988The doctrine of attractive nuisance applies only "to trespassing children who, because of their youth and inexperience, are unable to appreciate the dangers created by certain artificial conditions." Guilfoyle v. Missouri, Kansas, & Texas RR Co., 812 F.2d 1290 , 1292 (10th Cir.1987) (doctrine not applicable to 14 year old); Carlson v. Tucson Racket & Swim Club, Inc., 127 Ariz. 247 , 619 P.2d 756, 758 (App. 1980), reh'g denied 1980, review denied 1980 ("Where the plaintiff is of the age and experience to appreciate the danger that produces his injury the [attractive nuisance] doctrine does not | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Weatherby v. Meredith
green
2 sentences1985Weatherby v. Meredith, 341 So.2d 139 (Ala.1976) (swing set); Phillips v. J.F. 1985Weatherby v. Meredith, 341 So.2d 139 (Ala. 1976) (swing set); Phillips v. J.F. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Faylor v. Great Eastern Quicksilver Mining Co.
green
2 sentences1958Co., 205 Cal. 515, 518 [2], 271 P. 1060 ; Faylor v. Great Eastern, etc. Co., 45 Cal.App. 194, 199 , 187 P. 101 .) “The essential elements of a cause of action under the ‘hidden or concealed trap’ exception are (a) that the dangerous hazard causing death be artifically created by the owner, (b) it be so concealed as to constitute a trap, and (c) that it can be readily guarded without destroying its usefulness or placing upon the owner an undue burden.” The great weight of authority holds that the artificial character of the water hazard will not support the attractive nuisance doctrine, and has 1958Co., 205 Cal. 515, 518 [2], 271 P. 1060 ; Faylor v. Great Eastern, etc. Co., 45 Cal.App. 194, 199 , 187 P. 101 .) “The essential elements of a cause of action under the ‘hidden or concealed trap’ exception are (a) that the dangerous hazard causing death be artifically created by the owner, (b) it be so concealed as to constitute a trap, and (c) that it can be readily guarded without destroying its usefulness or placing upon the owner an undue burden.” The great weight of authority holds that the artificial character of the water hazard will not support the attractive nuisance doctrine, and has | 1 | 1958–1958 |
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.