[Download] "Hedgepath v. City of Durham" by Supreme Court of North Carolina No. 749 # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Hedgepath v. City of Durham
- Author : Supreme Court of North Carolina No. 749
- Release Date : January 12, 1944
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 56 KB
Description
In 38 Am. Jur., Negligence (subhead Attractive Nuisances), par. 142, it is written: ""While the doctrine has been variously stated, the courts which accept it generally are in substantial accord with the proposition that one who maintains upon his premises a condition, instrumentality, machine, or other agency which is dangerous to children of tender years by reason of their inability to appreciate the peril therein, and which may reasonably be expected to attract children of tender years to the premises, is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the dangers of the attraction. Within the limitations herein considered, the doctrine is for the benefit of a meddling, as well as of a trespassing, child. The result of such doctrine is that one is negligent in maintaining an agency which he knows, or reasonably should know, to be dangerous to children of tender years, at a place where he knows, or reasonably should know, children of tender years are likely to resort, or to which they are likely to be attracted by the agency, unless he exercises ordinary care for the protection of such indiscreet and youthful persons."" In par. 145, on the same subject at p. 811, it is written: ""If the place or appliance cannot be said to possess a quality calculated to attract children generally, it must be shown that to the defendant's knowledge the injured child or others were in the habit of using it. Knowledge of the presence of children is shown by proof that children were in the habit of playing on or about the offending appliance or place. On the other hand, many instrumentalities do not in their character suggest, or impute knowledge, that children will make use of them to their injury, in which cases the doctrine of attractive nuisance does not apply.""