Legal Definitions - turntable doctrine

The term turntable doctrine is an older name for what is now more commonly known as the attractive nuisance doctrine. This legal principle holds landowners responsible for injuries to trespassing children if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition on their land that is likely to attract children.

The attractive nuisance doctrine recognizes that children, due to their age and lack of judgment, may not understand the dangers posed by certain conditions or objects. Therefore, a landowner has a special duty to protect children from such hazards, even if those children are technically trespassing.

For the doctrine to apply, several conditions typically must be met:

• The landowner knows or should know that children are likely to trespass on the land where the dangerous condition exists.
• The condition itself is one that the landowner knows or should know involves an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to children.
• The children, because of their youth, do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or coming within the area made dangerous by it.
• The utility to the landowner of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight compared with the risk to children.
• The landowner fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect the children.

Here are some examples illustrating the attractive nuisance doctrine:

• Example 1: Unsecured Construction Materials

  A construction company leaves a large stack of heavy, unsecured drainage pipes on a residential development site. The site is unfenced and easily visible from a public sidewalk where children frequently walk. Children from the neighborhood, attracted by the pipes' tunnel-like appearance, climb on them. One day, a child climbs to the top, and the pipes shift, causing the child to fall and sustain a serious injury.

  Explanation: The stack of pipes constitutes an attractive nuisance. The construction company, as the landowner/possessor, should have anticipated that children would be drawn to play on the pipes, especially given the site's accessibility and proximity to a residential area. Children, due to their age, would not fully appreciate the instability and danger of the unsecured pipes. The company's failure to secure the pipes or fence the area, despite the relatively low cost of doing so compared to the risk of harm, makes them potentially liable under this doctrine.

• Example 2: Abandoned, Unfenced Swimming Pool

  An abandoned property with an unfenced, partially filled swimming pool is located next to a public park and a school. The property owner is aware that children often cut through the property as a shortcut. One afternoon, a young child, curious about the murky water, falls into the pool and nearly drowns, sustaining significant injuries.

  Explanation: The unfenced, partially filled swimming pool is an attractive nuisance. It presents a dangerous condition (drowning hazard, hidden debris) that is highly appealing to children for exploration or play, especially given its location near areas frequented by children. The property owner knew or should have known that children were likely to trespass and would not understand the severe risks posed by the pool. The cost of fencing the pool or completely draining it would be minimal compared to the potential for serious injury or death to a child.

• Example 3: Exposed Industrial Machinery

  A small manufacturing plant has an outdoor storage area adjacent to a residential neighborhood. In this area, a large, old, and partially disassembled piece of machinery with exposed gears and levers is left unsecured and uncovered. There is a gap in the fence, and neighborhood children occasionally sneak into the yard to explore. A child, fascinated by the machinery, attempts to operate a lever, catching their hand in the exposed gears and suffering a severe injury.

  Explanation: The exposed industrial machinery acts as an attractive nuisance. Its complex appearance and moving parts are inherently fascinating to children, who lack the judgment to understand the extreme danger of exposed gears. The plant owner knew or should have known that children could access the area through the fence gap and would be attracted to the machinery. The failure to properly secure, cover, or remove the dangerous equipment, despite the foreseeable risk to young trespassers, could lead to liability under the attractive nuisance doctrine.