Child Injuries on Property & Legal Concerns

When a child is injured on someone else’s property, complex legal questions frequently arise about who may be liable for the harm. Property owners and occupiers generally have a duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition for visitors, but the exact legal responsibilities depend on the circumstances. Children often have a limited ability to recognize risks compared to adults, which can heighten a property owner’s obligations.

Duty of Property Owners to Children

Property owners and occupiers may have a heightened duty of care when they know or should know that children are likely to come onto the property. Since young people may not recognize obvious hazards, the law often looks at whether the owner failed to address conditions that pose particular dangers to children. Unprotected swimming pools, readily accessible construction sites, hazardous machinery, or animals that attract a child’s curiosity are examples of conditions that can impose greater responsibilities on an owner. What amounts to “reasonable” precautions can vary greatly when children are involved, since children cannot be expected to appreciate all risks in the same way an adult would.

The Attractive Nuisance Doctrine

For child trespassers, a legal principle known as the attractive nuisance doctrine can allow recovery even when the child was not invited onto the property. This doctrine generally applies when a dangerous condition on the property would naturally draw a child’s attention and create a risk the child is too young to understand. Courts often consider whether the condition posed an unreasonable risk of serious harm, whether the property owner should have anticipated children might trespass, and whether reducing or eliminating the hazard was a relatively small burden. Fencing off swimming pools or locking construction equipment are common measures to prevent foreseeable injuries under this doctrine. Many jurisdictions limit the doctrine to artificial conditions rather than natural features, unless artificial alterations make the natural feature unusually hazardous in a manner a child would not recognize.

Elements of a Claim

An injured child (acting through a parent or guardian) typically must prove that the property owner or occupier owed a duty of care, that they breached this duty by failing to exercise reasonable care, and that this breach caused the injury. When the attractive nuisance doctrine applies, proving liability often involves showing that the owner was aware or should have been aware of a dangerous condition likely to entice children. Courts may also look at whether the burden of safeguarding against the risk was small when weighed against the danger presented to children. Whether children of a given age would recognize the danger often plays a key role in deciding if the owner should have taken further steps to secure the area.

Comparative and Contributory Negligence

In many states, if the child’s own actions contributed to the injury, damages may be reduced according to the child’s comparative fault. A few states follow contributory negligence principles, under which any degree of fault by the child could bar recovery. Courts often assume that very young children lack the maturity or capacity to be found negligent, but children above a certain age may be deemed partially responsible if they engage in reckless behavior that a child of the same age, intelligence, or experience would ordinarily avoid.

Filing a Legal Claim on a Child’s Behalf

Since minors typically cannot bring lawsuits on their own, a parent or legal guardian generally files a premises liability claim for the child. Courts may appoint a guardian ad litem or look for other mechanisms to ensure the child’s interests are fully protected. Settlements involving children often require judicial oversight to confirm that any compensation will be used appropriately for the child’s benefit.

Last reviewed May 2025