Peters v. Bowman
47 P. 113, 115 Cal. 345, 1896 Cal. LEXIS 1017 (1896)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The attractive nuisance doctrine, which holds landowners liable for injuries to child trespassers caused by certain dangerous conditions, does not extend to natural bodies of water like ponds, as the danger of drowning is considered open and obvious to a child of sufficient age.
Facts:
- Defendant Bowman owned a lot of land in San Francisco.
- The City of San Francisco graded an adjacent street, creating an embankment that blocked the natural drainage of surface water from Bowman's lot.
- As a result of the embankment, a pond would form on the lot during the rainy season. Bowman did not create the pond.
- The lot was unfenced, and children were known to play on the pond; Bowman was aware of this and had driven children away on one occasion.
- The plaintiff's son, an intelligent boy over eleven years old, knew about the pond.
- The plaintiff, the boy's father, was aware of the pond and his son's knowledge of it, but never warned him not to play there.
- On February 16, 1894, the boy went to the pond with friends, fell off a makeshift raft made of railroad ties, and drowned.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, the deceased boy's father, sued the defendant landowner, Bowman, in a California trial court to recover damages.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Bowman.
- The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial.
- The plaintiff (appellant) appealed the judgment and the order denying a new trial to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the attractive nuisance doctrine, also known as the 'turntable doctrine,' impose a duty on a landowner to protect a trespassing child from the danger of a pond that formed on the property?
Opinions:
Majority - McFarland, J.
No, the attractive nuisance doctrine does not apply to a pond. The general rule is that a landowner owes no duty to keep their premises safe for trespassers, including children. The 'turntable cases' created a narrow exception for dangerous, artificial machinery that would attract children who could not comprehend the risk. This exception should not be extended to natural conditions like bodies of water. The danger of drowning in a pond is an open, apparent danger, the knowledge of which is common to all, unlike the hidden dangers of complex machinery. To require landowners to fill or fence every body of water would be an unreasonable and oppressive burden on property rights. Numerous precedents from other jurisdictions have explicitly held that a landowner is not liable for the drowning of a trespassing child in a pond on their property.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the scope of the attractive nuisance doctrine in California by creating a clear distinction between artificial, mechanical dangers and natural conditions. By refusing to apply the doctrine to ponds, the court reinforced traditional common law principles of landowner rights and the limited duties owed to trespassers. The ruling establishes that the open and obvious nature of a hazard is a critical factor, suggesting that landowners are not insurers of the safety of trespassing children against common environmental dangers. This precedent makes it substantially more difficult for plaintiffs to recover in cases where child trespassers are injured by natural features on private land.
