Restatement (Second) Of Torts § 339

21 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Cockerham v. R. E. Vaughan, Inc.
  82 So. 2d 890· Fla.· 1955-09-23 ·cited 57×
  A 2.5-year-old child was injured when he fell into an uncovered 6x8x6 foot hole dug by a contractor to install a septic tank. The Florida Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for the contractor, holding that a contractor creating a dangerous condition on another's land owes th
• Concrete Constr., Inc. v. Petterson
  216 So. 2d 221· Fla.· 1968-06-12 ·cited 42×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Fourth District Court of Appeal and ruled that a building under construction is not per se an attractive nuisance, and that plaintiff must allege a specific alluring characteristic. The court held that where a child takes property from a con
• Ted M. Banks v. Mason
  132 So. 2d 219· Fla. 2d DCA· 1961-07-21 ·cited 27×
  In this negligence action arising from a child's drowning in a private swimming pool, the court affirmed dismissal of the complaint, holding that under Florida law, owners of artificial bodies of water are generally not liable for drowning deaths unless the pool constitutes a tra
• Nolley v. Chicago
  183 F.2d 566· 8th Cir.· 1950-08-08 ·cited 24×
  A railroad is not liable for a child's injury sustained while trespassing on its property if the child understood the risks involved, and the railroad took reasonable steps to maintain its property and operate trains, balancing utility against risk.
• Johnson v. United States
  270 F.2d 488· 9th Cir.· 1959-07-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that the evidence supported the conclusion that the defendant was not negligent in its construction and maintenance of the substation fence and gates.
• Steven Eric Lister by Lois B. Lister v. James Campbell & the Ins. Co. of N. Am.
  371 So. 2d 133· Fla. 1st DCA· 1979-02-07 ·cited 15×
  A 14-year-old boy who became paralyzed after diving into a water-filled gravel pit on the defendant's property sued under the attractive nuisance doctrine. The court affirmed summary judgment for the property owner, holding that the doctrine did not apply because the boy possesse
• Martinello v. B & P USA, Inc.
  566 So. 2d 761· Fla.· 1990-06-07 ·cited 13×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a Fourth District Court of Appeal decision that prevented a plaintiff from pursuing an attractive nuisance claim against a construction company. The court held that a plaintiff has the right to choose whether to proceed under the attractive nuis
• Johnson v. Bathey
  376 So. 2d 848· Fla.· 1979-11-01 ·cited 12×
  In this negligence case involving a child injured by an agricultural pump, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for landowners under the attractive nuisance doctrine. The Court declined to adopt the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339 and instead maintained Florida
• Menneti v. Evans Constr. Co.
  259 F.2d 367· 3d Cir.· 1958-09-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in entering judgments notwithstanding the verdicts, as the jury could reasonably find that the defendants maintained a dangerous condition by leaving a ditch on their land where children were known to play, which foreseeably filled wit
• McGILL v. United States
  200 F.2d 873· 3d Cir.· 1953-01-07 ·cited 6×
  The United States is liable under the Tort Claims Act for injuries to a child trespasser on land it occupied, based on the foreseeability of harm and the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339 standard.
• Harmon v. The Billings Bench Water Users Ass'n & the City of Billings
  765 F.2d 1464· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the irrigation ditch presented a hidden danger and whether the Association acted with reckless disregard for safety, precluding summary judgment on attractive nuisance and negligence claims.
• E. I. DU Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Ward Edgerton
  231 F.2d 430· 8th Cir.· 1956-04-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff, a seventeen-year-old, was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, precluding recovery.
• Locke v. Liquid AIR Corp.
  725 F.2d 1331· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that under Alabama law, water hazards, even those with concealed dangers, are not considered dangerous instrumentalities or attractive nuisures, and landowners owe no duty to trespassing children beyond not intentionally harming them.
• Johnson v. Bathey
  350 So. 2d 545· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-10-05 ·cited 2×
  A nine-year-old trespasser was severely injured by an operating irrigation pump on agricultural property. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that Florida law requires proof that the child was specif
• IN & FOR NEW Castle Cnty. David & Barbara Kalb v. Ronald & Edith Council & Jonathan & AMY Burnett
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2013-05-08
  The court denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the applicability of the attractive nuisance doctrine and whether the defendants' conduct rose to the level of willful or wanton disregard for the child's s
• Micromanolis v. The Woods Sch., Inc.
  989 F.2d 696· 3d Cir.· 1993-04-02
  A landowner owes a trespasser only the duty to refrain from wilful or wanton misconduct, not a duty of reasonable care, even if the trespasser is foreseeable and the injury results from an artificial condition.
• Bonney v. Canadian Nat'l Ry. Co.
  800 F.2d 274· 1st Cir.· 1986-09-05
  A landowner owes no duty to a trespasser beyond refraining from wanton, willful, or reckless acts, and this duty does not extend to a rescuer unless the landowner committed a tortious act against the person being rescued.
• Fulginiti v. Tocco
  462 F.2d 654· 3d Cir.· 1972-05-08
  A landowner is not liable under the infant-trespasser rule for injuries to a trespassing child caused by a common object like a short piece of copper tubing, as it does not involve an unreasonable risk of serious harm.
• Petterson v. Concrete Constr., Inc.
  202 So. 2d 191· Fla. 4th DCA· 1967-08-29
  Petterson appeals from dismissal of a complaint arising from a child's injury caused by cartridges found on a construction site. The court reverses and remands, holding that the complaint states a cause of action under the attractive nuisance doctrine and that the plaintiff shoul
• Novicki v. Blaw-Knox Co.
  304 F.2d 931· 3d Cir.· 1962-06-14
  The court held that a jury could reasonably find a landowner liable for injury to a trespassing child under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339, even if the child was aware of some dangers, if the child did not fully appreciate the combined risk.
• Franich v. Great N. Ry. Co.
  260 F.2d 599· 9th Cir.· 1958-10-22
  The court held that the trial court's finding of no negligence was contrary to the undisputed evidence and physical facts, and that all requirements for attractive nuisance were met.