9 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1952–1998 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Mexico 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mellas v. Lowdermilkgreen2 sentences1998The question for determination was whether the attractive nuisance doctrine should be extended to “cases of patent and visible alluring dangers other than those arising from mechanical appliances, defects, or otherwise.” Mellas, 58 N.M. at 368 , 271 P.2d at 403 . 1998The question for determination was whether the attractive nuisance doctrine should be extended to “cases of patent and visible alluring dangers other than those arising from mechanical appliances, defects, or otherwise.” Mellas, 58 N.M. at 368 , 271 P.2d at 403 . | 2 | 3 |
Klaus v. Edengreen2 sentences1998See Selby v. Tolbert, 56 N.M. 718, 723 , 249 P.2d 498, 501 (1952) (affirming defendants’ liability for child’s injuries resulting from being pinned under a trailer based on attractive nuisance doctrine). “[W]e see nothing different in the so-called law of attractive nuisance and the general law of negligence, except that involved is a recognition of the habits and characteristics of very young children.” Klaus, 70 N.M. at 375 , 374 P.2d at 131 . {12} In Mellas, this Court discussed the application of the attractive nuisance doctrine with respect to ponds, pools, lakes and irrigation ditches. 1998See Selby v. Tolbert, 56 N.M. 718, 723 , 249 P.2d 498, 501 (1952) (affirming defendants’ liability for child’s injuries resulting from being pinned under a trailer based on attractive nuisance doctrine). “[W]e see nothing different in the so-called law of attractive nuisance and the general law of negligence, except that involved is a recognition of the habits and characteristics of very young children.” Klaus, 70 N.M. at 375 , 374 P.2d at 131 . {12} In Mellas, this Court discussed the application of the attractive nuisance doctrine with respect to ponds, pools, lakes and irrigation ditches. | 1 | 4 |
Latimer Ex Rel. Grayes v. City of Clovisgreen2 sentences1998Martinez v. Lyster, 75 N.M. at 642 , 409 P.2d at 495 ; see also Latimer, 83 N.M. at 615 , 495 P.2d at 793 (noting that the language in Mellas has been modified by Martinez v. Lyster and Saul), Additionally, the concerns raised by Hagerman and addressed in Mellas, specifically, the difficulty of making water hazards safe, are addressed by the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339(d), which considers whether “the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved.” We will not exempt or provide im 1998Martinez v. Lyster, 75 N.M. at 642 , 409 P.2d at 495 ; see also Latimer, 83 N.M. at 615 , 495 P.2d at 793 (noting that the language in Mellas has been modified by Martinez v. Lyster and Saul), Additionally, the concerns raised by Hagerman and addressed in Mellas, specifically, the difficulty of making water hazards safe, are addressed by the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339(d), which considers whether “the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved.” We will not exempt or provide im | 1 | 2 |
Selby v. Tolbertgreen2 sentences1998See Selby v. Tolbert, 56 N.M. 718, 723 , 249 P.2d 498, 501 (1952) (affirming defendants’ liability for child’s injuries resulting from being pinned under a trailer based on attractive nuisance doctrine). “[W]e see nothing different in the so-called law of attractive nuisance and the general law of negligence, except that involved is a recognition of the habits and characteristics of very young children.” Klaus, 70 N.M. at 375 , 374 P.2d at 131 . {12} In Mellas, this Court discussed the application of the attractive nuisance doctrine with respect to ponds, pools, lakes and irrigation ditches. 1998See Selby v. Tolbert, 56 N.M. 718, 723 , 249 P.2d 498, 501 (1952) (affirming defendants’ liability for child’s injuries resulting from being pinned under a trailer based on attractive nuisance doctrine). “[W]e see nothing different in the so-called law of attractive nuisance and the general law of negligence, except that involved is a recognition of the habits and characteristics of very young children.” Klaus, 70 N.M. at 375 , 374 P.2d at 131 . {12} In Mellas, this Court discussed the application of the attractive nuisance doctrine with respect to ponds, pools, lakes and irrigation ditches. | 1 | 2 |
Salladay v. Old Dominion Copper Mining Co.green2 sentences1998See Salladay, 100 P. at 442 (concluding that “as a matter of law and as a matter of public policy” the attractive nuisance doctrine should not be extended to flumes and irrigation ditches). {6} We accepted certification on this case from the Court of Appeals on the question of whether Hagerman is entitled to summary judgment based upon the Salladay doctrine or, alternatively, immunity from liability under the Tort Claims Act. 1998The Court recognized “that the conduct of an infant of tender years is not to be judged by the same rule which governs that of an adult,” and that the “care and caution required of a child is according to his [or her] maturity and capacity only, and [that] this is to be determined in each ease by the circumstances of that case.” Stout, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) at 660 . {9} The Arizona Supreme Court, in Salladay, refused to extend the attractive nuisance doctrine enunciated in Stout because the condition was part of a class of “patent and visible alluring dangers.” See Salladay, 100 P. at 442 . | 1 | 1 |
Schleft v. Board of Education of the Los Alamos Public Schoolsgreen2 sentences1998See Schleft v. Board of Educ., 109 N.M. 271, 274 , 784 P.2d 1014, 1017 (Ct.App.1989) (noting that this Court adopted the first version of Section 339 and has not addressed the applicability in New Mexico of the second version); but cf. Martinez v. Lyster, 75 N.M. at 643 , 409 P.2d at 496 (Carmody, C.J., dissenting) (discussing the comments under the second version of Section 339). 1998See Schleft v. Board of Educ., 109 N.M. 271, 274 , 784 P.2d 1014, 1017 (Ct.App.1989) (noting that this Court adopted the first version of Section 339 and has not addressed the applicability in New Mexico of the second version); but cf. Martinez v. Lyster, 75 N.M. at 643 , 409 P.2d at 496 (Carmody, C.J., dissenting) (discussing the comments under the second version of Section 339). | 1 | 1 |
Martinez v. CR Davis Contracting Companygreen2 sentences1998Davis Contracting Co., 73 N.M. 474, 477-78 , 389 P.2d 597, 599 (1964) (Noble, J., dissenting) (noting that “in New Mexico it is established that the attractive nuisance doctrine will not be extended to include ... natural or artificial bodies of water, ditches or canals.”). 1998Davis Contracting Co., 73 N.M. 474, 477-78 , 389 P.2d 597, 599 (1964) (Noble, J., dissenting) (noting that “in New Mexico it is established that the attractive nuisance doctrine will not be extended to include ... natural or artificial bodies of water, ditches or canals.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Martinez Ex Rel. Martinez v. Louis Lyster, General Contractor, Inc.green2 sentences1998Martinez v. Lyster, 75 N.M. at 642 , 409 P.2d at 495 ; see also Latimer, 83 N.M. at 615 , 495 P.2d at 793 (noting that the language in Mellas has been modified by Martinez v. Lyster and Saul), Additionally, the concerns raised by Hagerman and addressed in Mellas, specifically, the difficulty of making water hazards safe, are addressed by the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339(d), which considers whether “the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved.” We will not exempt or provide im 1998Martinez v. Lyster, 75 N.M. at 642 , 409 P.2d at 495 ; see also Latimer, 83 N.M. at 615 , 495 P.2d at 793 (noting that the language in Mellas has been modified by Martinez v. Lyster and Saul), Additionally, the concerns raised by Hagerman and addressed in Mellas, specifically, the difficulty of making water hazards safe, are addressed by the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339(d), which considers whether “the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved.” We will not exempt or provide im | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Saul Ex Rel. Saul v. Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe
green
2 sentences1972The elements of the doctrine of attractive nuisance are stated in Saul v. Roman Catholic Church of Arch. of Santa Fe, 75 N.M. 160 , 402 P.2d 48 (1965) and Klaus v. Eden, 70 N.M. 371 , 374 P.2d 129 (1962). 1972The elements of the doctrine of attractive nuisance are stated in Saul v. Roman Catholic Church of Arch. of Santa Fe, 75 N.M. 160 , 402 P.2d 48 (1965) and Klaus v. Eden, 70 N.M. 371 , 374 P.2d 129 (1962). | 3 | 1972–1998 |
Barker v. City of Santa Fe
green
2 sentences1952The Draconian theory is criticized' severely in 1 Thompson on the Law of Negligence, Sec. 1026, p. 939 (2d Ed.): “ * * * This cruel and wicked doctrine, unworthy of a civilized jurisprudence, puts property above humanity, leaves entirely out of view the tender years and infirmity of understanding of the child, indeed his inabil•ity to be a trespasser in-sound legal theory, and visits upon him the consequences of his trespass just as though ■he were an adult, and exonerates the person or corporation upon whose property he is a trespasser from any measure of duty towards him which they would not 1952The Draconian theory is criticized' severely in 1 Thompson on the Law of Negligence, Sec. 1026, p. 939 (2d Ed.): “ * * * This cruel and wicked doctrine, unworthy of a civilized jurisprudence, puts property above humanity, leaves entirely out of view the tender years and infirmity of understanding of the child, indeed his inabil•ity to be a trespasser in-sound legal theory, and visits upon him the consequences of his trespass just as though ■he were an adult, and exonerates the person or corporation upon whose property he is a trespasser from any measure of duty towards him which they would not | 2 | 1952–1962 |
Railroad Co. v. Stout
green
2 sentences1998ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND THE SALLADAY DOCTRINE {8} The attractive nuisance doctrine evolved as an exception to the general rule that a landowner is not liable to trespassers. 1 In Railroad Company v. Stout, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 657 , 21 L.Ed. 745 (1873), the United States Supreme Court employed the attractive nuisance, or “turntable,” doctrine, 2 and allowed recovery by a trespassing child injured while playing with a turntable on railroad property. 1998ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND THE SALLADAY DOCTRINE {8} The attractive nuisance doctrine evolved as an exception to the general rule that a landowner is not liable to trespassers. 1 In Railroad Company v. Stout, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 657 , 21 L.Ed. 745 (1873), the United States Supreme Court employed the attractive nuisance, or “turntable,” doctrine, 2 and allowed recovery by a trespassing child injured while playing with a turntable on railroad property. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Garrow v. State
neutral
2 sentences1964Whipple v. State, supra; Garrow v. State, 268 App.Div. 534 , 52 N.Y.S.2d 155 , aff'd 294 N.Y. 741 , 61 N.E.2d 523 . 1964Whipple v. State, supra; Garrow v. State, 268 App.Div. 534 , 52 N.Y.S.2d 155 , aff'd 294 N.Y. 741 , 61 N.E.2d 523 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Garrow v. State of New York
neutral
2 sentences1964Whipple v. State, supra; Garrow v. State, 268 App.Div. 534 , 52 N.Y.S.2d 155 , aff'd 294 N.Y. 741 , 61 N.E.2d 523 . 1964Whipple v. State, supra; Garrow v. State, 268 App.Div. 534 , 52 N.Y.S.2d 155 , aff'd 294 N.Y. 741 , 61 N.E.2d 523 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Cotter v. Novak
green
2 sentences1962The court further indicated its acceptance and approval of the Restatement of Torts, § 339, which it described as an “attempt to clarify the rules.” In the case of Cotter v. Novak, 57 N.M. 639 , 261 P.2d 827 , we noted the decision in Selby v. Tolbert, supra, and pointed out that whereas there is nothing inherently dangerous about a trailer, the decision there turned on the fact that the manner of parking created a dangerous condition which might be attractive to playing children and which defendants should have foreseen as reasonable men. 1962The court further indicated its acceptance and approval of the Restatement of Torts, § 339, which it described as an “attempt to clarify the rules.” In the case of Cotter v. Novak, 57 N.M. 639 , 261 P.2d 827 , we noted the decision in Selby v. Tolbert, supra, and pointed out that whereas there is nothing inherently dangerous about a trailer, the decision there turned on the fact that the manner of parking created a dangerous condition which might be attractive to playing children and which defendants should have foreseen as reasonable men. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Newby v. West Palm Beach Water Co.
green
1 sentence1954A. Yes, that is one thing he was better than I am at.” In Newby v. West Palm Beach Water Co., Fla., 47 So.2d 527, 528 , the court said: “The attractive nuisance doctrine may protect one against another’s negligence; but it does 'not presume to pro-' tect- him against his fault, bad luck, improvidence or misfortune. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Esquibel v. City & County of Denver
green
2 sentences1952The sole case cited in support of the defendants’ argument is Esquibel v. City and County of Denver, 1944, 112 Colo. 546 , 151 P.2d 757 . 1952The sole case cited in support of the defendants’ argument is Esquibel v. City and County of Denver, 1944, 112 Colo. 546 , 151 P.2d 757 . | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.