NATURE OF CASE: Appeal from judgment predicated upon sustaining of demurrer to third amended complaint without leave to amend in action to recover damages for death resulting from "attractive nuisance."
FACT SUMMARY: Knight (P), mother of decedent, a minor child, brought suit against Kaiser (D) for recovery based on the "attractive nuisance" doctrine, when P's son was asphyxiated in a sand pile on D's property after it collapsed on him.
CONCISE RULE OF LAW: In the absence of circumstances which bring a case under the "attractive nuisance" doctrine, an owner of land owes no other duty to a child trespassing on his premises than he owes to an adult trespasser.
FACTS: Knight (P) was the mother of decedent, ten years of age. Kaiser (D) owned and maintained premises on which it had placed or caused to be placed large piles of sand and gravel and, adjacent thereto, a large conveyor belt. No fences, guards or railings were placed around the piles or a portion of the conveyor belt. Children were in the habit of playing upon the piles and conveyor belt. Kaiser (D) knew (or should have known) that the existing conditions involved an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to children. On August 20, 1953, Knight's (P) son, while playing upon Kaiser's (D) premises and digging in one of the sand piles, was asphyxiated when it collapsed on him.
ISSUE: Does a sand pile constitute an "attractive nuisance," i.e., a fact which places liability upon the owner of property for injuries to a trespassing child?
HOLDING AND DECISION: (McComb, J.) No. As far as attractiveness to children is concerned, there is no significant difference between a body of water and a sand pile. Pools of water and sand piles duplicate the work of nature and are not uncommon. In fact, a pool of water is far more dangerous than a sand pile, which in and of itself is not dangerous.
...