What is an attractive nuisance?
An attractive nuisance is a dangerous man-made condition on property, such as an unfenced pool, that is likely to draw young children in. Even though the children are trespassing, the owner can be liable if it knew children were likely to come and did not take reasonable, affordable steps to protect them.
Last checked November 9, 2026 · Official sources (5)
Attractive nuisance example: the broken pool gate
Example: an apartment complex in San Antonio knows its pool gate latch has been broken for two months. Kids from the next street have been seen climbing in on weekends. A 6-year-old wanders in one evening and nearly drowns. Hospital care and therapy cost $80,000.
Normally, a Texas landowner owes a trespasser very little. The attractive nuisance rule is the exception for children. The complex knew children were likely to come, the pool posed a serious risk to them, a 6-year-old could not grasp that risk, and a $40 latch was a slight burden next to the danger. Those facts line up with the statute's conditions, which is what gives the family a claim for the $80,000 despite the child being a trespasser.
What does Texas require for an attractive nuisance claim?
Texas law says an owner, lessee or occupant may be liable for injury to a child from a highly dangerous artificial condition when all the listed conditions are met. In plain terms:
- The owner knew or should have known children were likely to trespass there.
- The owner knew or should have known about the condition and its serious risk to children.
- Because of youth, the child did not discover the condition or realize the risk.
- Keeping the condition was of little value and fixing it was a slight burden compared with the risk.
- The owner failed to use reasonable care to remove the danger or protect the child.
Arizona recognizes the doctrine too; its recreational-use statute says it does not limit liability that otherwise exists for an attractive nuisance. Most states share the same core elements.
Why does attractive nuisance matter after a child is hurt?
Without it, many injured children would have no claim at all, because trespassers are owed almost nothing. With it, the questions become what the owner knew and how easy the fix was. Photos of broken fences, neighbors who saw kids there before, and complaints to a property manager are the evidence that tends to matter most.
Attractive nuisance vs. premises liability
Premises liability is the broad area of injuries on someone's property. Attractive nuisance is a narrow rule inside it for child trespassers and man-made dangers. Natural features, like a creek, usually fall outside it.
Questions
Does attractive nuisance apply to adults?
Generally no. It turns on the child's youth and inability to see the risk.
Is a backyard pool an attractive nuisance?
It can be, especially if the owner knew neighborhood children got in and a fence or lock would have been an easy fix.
What if the danger was natural, like a pond?
The Texas statute is limited to artificial conditions.
Find out if you are owed money.
A free case review. $0 upfront. No fee unless you win.
See if I’m owed moneySources (5)
- Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 75.007(c), checked 2026-11-09. “an owner, lessee, or occupant of land may be liable for injury to a child caused by a highly dangerous artificial condition on the land if”
- Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 75.007(c)(3), checked 2026-11-09. “the injured child, because of the child's youth, did not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with the condition or coming within the area made dangerous by the condition”
- A.R.S. § 33-1551, checked 2026-11-09. “does not limit the liability that otherwise exists for maintaining an attractive nuisance”
- Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 75.007(c)(4), checked 2026-11-09. “the utility to the owner, lessee, or occupant of maintaining the artificial condition and the burden of eliminating the danger were slight as compared with the risk to the child involved”
- Bennett v. Stanley (Ohio 2001), checked 2026-11-09. “Elements such as knowledge of children’s presence, the maintenance of a potentially dangerous force, and an exercise of care by the owner commensurate with the danger are a part of the attractive nuisance doctrine in most states”