Attractive Nuisance

Question Presented Whether Sherman, under the attractive nuisance doctrine, will likely prevail against Carlisle for multiple injuries he sustained in a fall from wooden steps of a tree house in disrepair while trespassing upon Carlisle’s property when: (1) Carlisle was aware that the neighborhood surrounding his property was populated with children; (2) a severe storm had damaged Carlisle’s property and exposed the previously concealed tree house; (3) Sherman was six years of age at the time of his injury; (4) Carlisle had little incentive to make repairs to the tree house prior to the storm because of its concealment; (5) immediately following the storm, Carlisle made arrangements with a contractor at a higher than average rate to make repairs to his property; and (6) Sherman was enticed to enter Carlisle’s land by construction materials and yellow caution tape and was unaware of the tree house until entering upon the property.
Statement of Facts Carlisle has contacted our office seeking advice regarding an action against him for injuries suffered by a neighborhood boy, Sherman, while Sherman was trespassing upon his property. You have asked me to determine whether Sherman can prevail by proving Carlisle liable for his injuries. In 2005, Carlisle purchased “Fieldstone,” a two-acre estate sixty-five miles southwest of downtown Miami. Carlisle anticipated that his New York based company would expand into southern Florida and that he would eventually settle at Fieldstone. However, due to increased demands from his New York business, Carlisle has rarely spent more than two or three days at a time at Fieldstone, with long stretches in between. The estate, at the time of the incident, had been poorly maintained for quite some time and the backyard was vastly overgrown. Its unkempt condition appealed to Carlisle, however, as he looked forward to clearing the grounds himself. He was likewise intrigued by an abandoned tree house on the property that appeared