cial interest in the safety of a child.
8. Separate Opinions, Including Dissents The separate, concurring opinion by Parker Wood, Acting P.J. and Ashburn, J., pro tem., does not appear.
9. Other Items of Note The finding in Copfer relies on the Restatement of Torts, which the court states is "substantially" the same as the rule in California. However, e.g., in Peters v. Bowman, 115 Cal. 345, 47 P. 113 (1896), the court there held that the owner of land is under no duty to keep premises safe for trespassers, though they be infants.
1. Heading Wilford v. Little, 144 Cal.App.2d 477, 301 P.2d 282 (1956). Opinion for the court: Fourt, J., concurring opinion: White, P.J., dissenting opinion: Doran, J.
2. Statement of the Case This is a case about potential tort liability of a landowner for the death of a minor child who fell into a private swimming pool on the landowner's residential property.
3. The Facts The swimming pool contained nine feet of water and a diving board at one end, and could be seen by children playing on the adjacent property, which fact was known by Little (D). Wilford (P) and another small boy entered Little's (D) property and began to play on the board, which seemed similar to a see-saw. In the course of play, Wilford (P) fell or jumped from the board and was drowned. The property of Little (D) was not enclosed or fenced, but could have been for little cost.
4. Procedural History and Outcome Here To an amended complaint, Little (D) demurred. The demur was sustained and leave to amend the complaint was granted. No amendment was made and a judgment of dismissal was entered. The appellate division affirmed the judgment of dismissal.
5. Issue(s) Is a swimming pool (and diving board) an "attractive nuisance"?
6. Holding The "attractive nuisance" doctrine is not applicable, as a swimming pool (and diving board) is not an "attractive nuisance," as a matter of law.
7. Reasoning T...