Attractive Nuisance

Barrett v. Southern Pacific (1891)

Turntable = dangerous artificial condition; early recognition of duty to child trespassers.

Peters v. Bowman (1896)

Pond = no duty; water = 'ordinary danger.' (Later rejected.)

Sanchez v. East Contra Costa (1928)

Hidden siphon = liability; distinguishes hidden vs. obvious danger.

Copfer v. Golden (1955)

Liability for unattended trailer/equipment attracting children.

Wilford v. Little (1956)

Backyard pool treated like pond; no duty under old categories.

Knight v. Kaiser (1957)

No duty for sand pile suffocation; ordinary condition.

Reynolds v. Willson (1958)

Partially drained pool = hidden hazard; child's age matters.

Garcia v. Soogian (1959)

CA adopts Restatement §339; rejects rigid no-duty categories.

King v. Lennen (1959)

Toddler drowning; overrules Peters/Knight; §339 governs.

Rubric — Opinion Format

Must be a per curiam opinion. Use judicial structure: Issue → Rule → Application → Holding.

Rubric — Invitee vs. Trespasser

If invitee → ordinary negligence duty. If trespasser → §339 controls.

Rubric — Personal Injuries Only

§339 covers only children's personal injuries. No recovery for property loss (e.g., dog).

Rubric — Negligence Elements (After §339)

After duty/breach come from §339, analyze: Causation-in-fact, Proximate cause (foreseeability), Damages (personal injury only).

Rubric — CA §339 Rule + Mnemonic (KIDRS)

CA follows Restatement §339. Rejects categorical 'pond/pool/sand = no duty.'

Rubric — Proximate Cause

Two defense angles: No cause-in-fact (cold/wet caused harm, not pond/maze). No proximate cause (Palsgraf-style remoteness/unforeseeability).

How §339 Connects to Negligence

§339 replaces duty AND breach. Negligence then supplies: causation (actual + proximate) + damages.