The attractive nuisance doctrine (2)

In such cases, the owner of the premises cannot be heard to say that because the child has entered his premises without his express permission, he is a trespasser to whom the owner owes no duty or obligation whatever.

The owner’s failure to take reasonable precautions to prevent the child from entering premises at a place where he knows or ought to know that children are accustomed to roaming about or to which their childish instincts and impulses are likely to attract them is at least equivalent to an implied license to enter, and where the child does not enter under such conditions the owners’ failure to take reasonable precaution to guard the child against the injury from unknown or unseen dangers, placed upon such premises by the owner, is clearly a breach of duty, a negligent omission, for which he may and should be held responsible, if the child is actually injured, without other fault on its part than that it had entered on the premises of a stranger without his express invitation or permission.

To hold otherwise would be to expose all the children in the community to unknown perils and unnecessary danger at the whim of the owners or occupants of land upon which they might naturally and reasonably be expected to enter.

“Later, in Hidalgo Enterprises Inc. v. Balandan, this Court made a clarification on the doctrine’s application to bodies of water, explaining:

“The attractive nuisance doctrine generally is not applicable to bodies of water, artificial as well as natural, in the absence of some unusual condition or artificial feature other than the mere water and its location.

“Here, the records show that there were two slides installed with slopes ending at the kiddie pool. Taking Hidalgo into consideration, although the swimming pool alone may not be considered an attractive nuisance, the kiddie pool’s close proximity to the slides formed an unusual condition or artificial feature intended to attract children. In other words, the installation of the slides with slopes ending over the swimming pool’s waters makes it an attractive nuisance.

“Based on the foregoing, the respondent’s failure to prevent the children from using the swimming pool was the proximate cause of the injuries they sustained. To reiterate, by maintaining an attractive nuisance on its premises, it is the respondent’s responsibility to ensure that necessary precautions are in place to prevent children from being harmed. Respondent’s failure to install the needed safeguards constitutes negligence for which it should be held liable for damages.”

The facts and quoted decision are from Karlos Aleta v. Sofitel Philippine Plaza (G.R. 228150, 11 January 2023).