Paugh v.

City of Seattle Facts: plaintiff: Paugh Defendant: city of Seattle Paughs to sons age 6 and 8 drowned in a pond owned by the city. Plaintiff sued defendant for the deaths of his sons There are no witnesses to the drowning; the father has taken his sons to said pond multiple times to fish with the caveat being no entering the water. There are no warning signs near the pond, the defendant has taken no steps against trespassing Procedural history: trial court judgment for the defendant. Moved from summary judgment for the defendant to appeal Issue: is the city responsible for drownings that occurred on their land? --> Under the general rules of trespass in the state of Washington does the drowning of the plaintiffs sons make the city liability under the accretive nuisance doctrine. Applicable Rules of Law: the landowner owes no duty to trespassers, except to not willfully cause their injury [mail v. Smith lumber co., 287 P.2d 877 (Wash 1955)] ****Exception: the attractive nuisance doctrine (adopted in the state of Washington) Nuisance Doctrine: the doctrine reflects the public concern for the welfare of children. The following requirements must be present. 1. The condition must be dangerous in and of itself. (likely to, or probably will, result in injury to those attracted to it 2. Must be attractive and enticing to children 3. The children must be incapable of understanding its danger 4. Must be left unguarded in a place where children could be, or can be reasonably 5. It expected to go 5. It must be reasonable to prevent access or render the condition less attractive without destroying the utility. Holding: judgment for the defendant, ponds are not an attractive nuisance because 6 and 8 year olds are capable of understanding the danger of drowning. Further, the relatively small amount of drowning in ponds shows their lack of danger Court Decision: Affirmed, judgment for defendant Reasoning: shock v. Ringling, 105 P.2d 838 (wash. 1940), the state of Washington's recreational land act limits liability for land owners for property used by the public in a recreational way Analysis of

1. The condition must be dangerous in and of itself. (likely to, or probably will, result in injury to those attracted to it 2. Must be attractive and enticing to children 3. The children must be incapable of understanding its danger 4. Must be left unguarded in a place where children could be, or can be reasonably 5. It expected to go 5. It must be reasonable to prevent access or render the condition less attractive without destroying the utility. Pond is not an attractive nuisance