Increasing Urbanization Revives Attractive Nuisance Doctrine

Historically, this doctrine held property owners liable for injuries sustained by children who were attracted to hazardous conditions on their property. Think of it like this: if there’s a swimming pool in a yard that doesn’t have a fence, or an abandoned building with open windows, and children wander onto that property and get hurt, the owner could be held responsible. The reasoning is simple: children are naturally curious and often don’t recognize danger in the way adults do, so property owners have a duty to make sure that their property doesn’t lure children into harm’s way.

The attractive nuisance doctrine has been around for decades, but as urban spaces evolve, so too does its application. For one, cities are becoming denser, and the boundaries between public and private spaces are often blurred. In neighborhoods where there’s a high level of pedestrian traffic, or areas that are seeing an influx of new development, property owners may find themselves facing more liability than they ever expected. That’s because today’s “attractive nuisances” don’t just involve backyard pools or derelict buildings anymore. They’ve grown to encompass everything from construction sites to vacant lots that might seem like an innocent playground for a group of kids. And with the increasing urbanization, property owners — especially in cities — are at a greater risk of being found liable for injuries on their property, whether they intended to harm anyone or not.