Sentences with phrase «nuisance doctrine»

The legal doctrine that provides for this exception is called the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine.

Under the Florida Attractive Nuisance Doctrine, the business will be responsible to the injury victim if there was anything on the property that could be tempting or attractive to the curiosity of the child.

When a child is hurt, then the Florida Attractive Nuisance Doctrine may find the business liable to the child where it would not be liable to an adult who had suffered the exact same injury.

In so holding, the court noted that the jurisdiction where the accident occurred did not apply the attractive nuisance doctrine, meaning that children are owed no greater a duty than adults.

The considerations a court takes into account when determining if a landowner is liable under the attractive nuisance doctrine are whether:

The case presents an interesting issue for Florida premises liability plaintiffs because it brings to light how the state's attractive nuisance doctrine may be helpful to Florida plaintiffs in a similar situation.

The attractive nuisance doctrine may result in liability if the injured party is a child, and they were drawn to the dangerous condition on the landowner's property because it is one that is likely to attract children.

Under the Florida Attractive Nuisance Doctrine, a business owner or property owner will be responsible to a young injury victim if there was something on the premises that could be tempting or attractive to the curiosity of the child.

The Supreme Court can not tell New York that it must apply the attractive nuisance doctrine, as it is neither a...

Attractive Nuisance Doctrine is meant to protect children primarily who aren't able to understand the dangers such hazards could present to them.

Had this case arisen in Indiana, where the attractive nuisance doctrine is in effect, the result of the case may have been different.

The attractive nuisance doctrine is an exception in Georgia premises liability law that specifically applies to child trespassers.

Under the attractive nuisance doctrine, property owners can sometimes be held liable for a child trespasser's injuries in a premises liability lawsuit.

Many parts of the attractive nuisance doctrine are open to interpretation.

Not exact matches

In June 2009, the court granted defendants» motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction finding that plaintiffs» federal claim for nuisance is barred by the political question doctrine and for lack of standing.

Under the doctrine of attractive nuisance, a private pool owner would be held to a duty to keep a pool safe from trespassing children.

One other important factor in premises liability cases involving children is the doctrine of «attractive nuisance.»

Normally, the doctrine is used to find a duty on the part of a landowner after a trespassing child is injured by some attractive nuisance on the defendant's property.