Is a Georgia property owner liable when a child trespasser is hurt by something enticing?
Sometimes. Georgia carves out a special exception to the harsh rule that owners owe trespassers almost no duty. Known as the attractive-nuisance doctrine, it can make an owner responsible when a dangerous but enticing condition draws in a child too young to appreciate the risk.
Why children are treated differently ¶
For an adult trespasser, a Georgia owner generally owes only the duty not to cause willful or wanton injury. The attractive-nuisance doctrine softens that rule for young children, recognizing that a child lured onto the land by something fascinating cannot fairly be held to an adult’s judgment about danger. The doctrine arose to protect trespassing children where their presence could reasonably be anticipated and modest precautions could shield them without a heavy burden on the owner’s use of the land.
The Georgia Supreme Court in Gregory v. Johnson adopted the framework from the Restatement (Second) of Torts for these claims involving a trespassing child.
The conditions that must line up ¶
Under that framework, liability generally requires showing all of the following:
- The owner knew or had reason to know children were likely to trespass where the condition existed.
- The owner knew or should have known the condition posed an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children.
- The children, because of their youth, did not realize the risk involved.
- The burden of eliminating the danger was slight compared to the risk to children.
- The owner failed to use reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect the children.
Each element matters. If the child was old enough to grasp the danger, or the owner had no reason to expect children there, or making the condition safe would have been impractical, the claim can fail. Classic examples that may qualify include unsecured pools, construction sites, abandoned equipment, and similar hazards that draw children in.
Should the attractive-nuisance elements line up and liability attach, O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 can still enter to assign a percentage of fault, yet very young children are frequently presumed incapable of negligence, which caps how much of that fault can land on the child.
The bottom line ¶
A Georgia owner can be liable when a child trespasser is hurt by an enticing hazard, but only if the multi-part attractive-nuisance test is satisfied, centering on foreseeable child trespass, a serious risk the child could not appreciate, and an inexpensive precaution the owner neglected.
This article is for general educational and informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship, and Georgia law may change. For advice about a specific situation, consult a licensed Georgia personal injury attorney.