Understanding ‘Attractive Nuisance’ Claims: Liability for Injured Children in Washington

When a child is injured on someone else’s property, most people assume there’s no liability if the child was trespassing. But under Washington law, children are given special protection when they are harmed by certain dangers that are both man-made and tempting. This legal principle is known as the attractive nuisance doctrine. It creates a duty on the part of property owners to secure certain types of hazards—like swimming pools, trampolines, or abandoned vehicles—because of the foreseeable risk they pose to young children who may not understand the danger.

What Is an Attractive Nuisance?

An attractive nuisance is a dangerous, artificial condition on land that is likely to draw the attention of children who are too young to appreciate the risk. Unlike natural dangers like rivers or cliffs, which do not usually result in liability, artificial features such as unfenced pools, construction equipment, treehouses, or old machinery may expose landowners to claims when they cause injury. The key element is that the hazard is likely to attract children and that the landowner knows, or should know, that the condition is both dangerous and appealing to them.

Washington’s Legal Standard for Liability

Washington follows the rule set out in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339, which governs when a landowner may be held responsible for injuries to child trespassers. For liability to apply, several conditions must be met. The landowner must have reason to know that children are likely to trespass in the area where the condition exists. The condition must involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious harm to children. The injured child must not have discovered the condition or fully understood the risk because of their youth. In addition, the burden of removing the danger or protecting against it must be relatively small compared to the risk involved. Finally, the landowner must have failed to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or guard against the harm.

This is a fact-driven test. Courts will examine what the landowner knew, what measures were taken to secure the property, and how foreseeable the trespass or injury was. The younger the child, the more likely it is that the court will find the child was unable to understand the danger or protect themselves from it.

Unfenced Pools and Trampolines: High-Risk Hazards

Among the most commonly litigated attractive nuisances are backyard swimming pools and trampolines. A swimming pool, especially one without a locked gate or safety cover, is one of the clearest examples. If a child drowns or is injured after entering a pool that was left accessible, the homeowner may face significant liability, even if the child did not have permission to be there. Trampolines can also pose a serious risk, particularly when left in unfenced yards or when multiple children are allowed to play on them without supervision.

Homeowners should be aware that in many jurisdictions throughout Washington, local ordinances may impose specific safety requirements for pool enclosures or other features. Failing to comply with these codes can not only result in fines but can also strengthen a plaintiff’s claim that the owner was negligent.

Special Considerations for Landlords and Property Managers

Landlords and commercial property owners may be held liable for attractive nuisances even when they do not reside on the property. If a rental home contains a trampoline, open fire pit, or pool, and these features are accessible to neighborhood children, the property owner may be responsible for any injuries that occur. Likewise, vacant lots or partially constructed buildings left unsecured can pose dangers that attract children, triggering liability under this doctrine.

Even if the tenant is responsible for maintaining the property, a landlord who knows—or should know—of a hazardous condition that may attract children may be obligated to act. Failing to do so can lead to claims that the landlord breached their duty of care.

Preventing Liability: Practical Steps for Property Owners

Washington law does not require property owners to eliminate every potential hazard. Instead, the law requires that reasonable care be taken to protect children from artificial conditions that are likely to cause serious injury. Reasonable precautions might include fencing in pools and trampolines, locking gates, removing ladders or access points to elevated platforms, and warning or restricting access to dangerous machinery. Regular property inspections and prompt removal or repair of hazards can go a long way in demonstrating that the owner acted responsibly.

While “No Trespassing” signs may help support a landowner’s defense in some cases, they are generally not enough when it comes to protecting young children who cannot read or understand such warnings. Ultimately, the best way to avoid liability is to assume that children may enter the property and to make dangerous features as inaccessible as possible.

What to Do After a Child Is Injured

If your child has been injured on someone else’s property—whether it involved a pool, trampoline, or other hazard—you should speak with an attorney as soon as possible. These cases often require investigation into the condition of the property, local safety codes, and what the landowner knew. On the other side, if you are a property owner or landlord concerned about your liability, it is wise to review your premises and legal obligations with the help of counsel before an injury occurs.

Speak With an Attorney Today

At the Law Office of Erin Bradley McAleer, we represent both families and property owners in attractive nuisance and premises liability cases across Clark County and Southwest Washington. If your child was injured, or if you’re unsure about your legal duties as a property owner, our firm can help you navigate your rights and risks. Contact us today for a free consultation at (360) 334-6277.