f the kind intended by the doctrine and did not constitute an unreasonable, latent risk of bodily injury. Further, the risk of falling after climbing onto a step stool and subsequently leaping off it is one children of normal capacity should realize. Finally, an allegation of Defendant's not exercising reasonable care to protect children is tenuous at best.
Generally, the owner or occupier of land owes no duty to trespassers except not to injure a trespasser willfully, wantonly or through gross negligence. Lampasas v. Spring Center, Inc., 988 S.W. 2d 428, 434 (Tex. App. 1999), Texas Utilities Electric Co. v. Timmons, 947 S.W. 2d 191, 193 (Tex. 1997), citing Burton Constr. & Shipbuilding Co. v. Broussard, 154 Tex. 50, 273 S.W. 2d 598, 603 (Tex. 1954).
An exception to this general rule is the doctrine of "attractive nuisance." The Texas Supreme Court adopted the American Law Institute's first Restatement of Torts' test for attractive nuisance in Banker v. McLaughlin, 146 Twx. 434, 208 S.W. 2d 843 (1948). Brownfield v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 794 S.W.2d 773, 775-776 (Tex. App. 1990). The Second Restatement of Torts made subsequent, slight changes to the attractive nuisance test, which, according to the Brownfield court, made no substantive change to the doctrine. Brownfield at 776.
The Restatement provides as follows:
¦ 339. Artificial Conditions Highly Dangerous to Trespassing Children
...