NATURE OF CASE: Appeal from denial of damages for "Attractive Nuisance" and from order denying motion for new trial.
FACT SUMMARY: Peters (P), father of decedent, a minor child, brought suit against Bowman (D) for recovery based on "Rule of the Turntable Cases," i.e., "Attractive Nuisance Doctrine," when P's son drowned in a pond situated on land owned by D.
CONCISE RULE OF LAW: The owner of land is under no duty to keep premises safe for trespassers, though they be infants.
FACTS: Bowman (D) owned the lot in question and resided on it for several years prior to 1889. The land sloped toward the west and fronted Ashbury Street on the westerly side. In its natural condition, the lot's surface water flowed off through a gully across Ashbury Street and emptied into a pond two blocks away. At some time prior to 1889, the City of San Francisco graded Ashbury Street and created an embankment along the street, across the gully and on the westerly side of the lot. Such prevented flow of surface water from the lot, thus forming a pond during the rainy season. On this account, Bowman (D) removed his residence to an adjoining county. Bowman (D) did nothing to create the pond or prevent water from flowing away. The lot was not enclosed by a fence or otherwise. Bowman (D) did not give permission to go upon the lot; but children did, nevertheless, play upon the pond. Peters (P) knew of the existence of the pond and knew that his Decedent son, then aged 11, knew of it. On February 16, 1894, Decedent was playing upon the pond with other boys on a crudely constructed raft and, while running along one of its timbers, fell off and was drowned.
ISSUE: Is the owner of a vacant lot, upon which is situated a pond of water or a dangerous excavation, required to fence it or to otherwise insure the safety of uninvited strangers?
HOLDING AND DECISION: (McFarland, J.) No. The dece
...