Barnhizer V. Paradise Valley Unified Sch Case Study

Barnhizer v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist.- A thirteen year old boy trespass onto the schools property climbing on a I-beam located on roof and fell to his death. The parents brought a wrongful death action against the school under the theory of attractive nuisance. The courts ruled in favor of the school because the attractive nuisance doctrine states "the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it". In the Barnhizer, case the boy was old enough to appreciate the effects gravity and the danger of falling off the roof. This case serves as the best authority for Ms. Herrera, showing that Maria Malone at the age of 12 years old could appreciate the risk of slipping on the slippery rocks on her property.
Citation - Barnhizer v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 123 Ariz. 253 (1979)
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Superior Court -
Best Authorities for the Malones
Carlson v. Tucson Racquet &
Swim Club - A sixteen year old boy onto the property of the Tucson Racquet and Swim Club and dived into a 5 feet deep pool without being able to see the bottom and suffered an injury. The courts ruled that the attractive nuisance doctrine did not apply because a sixteen year old at that age held the intelligence to appreciate the clear danger of diving into the water when he was not able to see the bottom clearly. This case best serves as a good authority for the Malones. The minor in this case was an experienced swimmer and held knowledge of how deep the pool was before diving into the pool, Maria Malone was not experienced in and the style or formation of rocks such as the condition on Ms. Herrera's property.
Citation - Carlson v. Tucson Racquet & Swim Club, 127 Ariz. 247 (Ct. App. 1980) Element 2: the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved.
Best Authorities for Ms. Herrera
Buekeye Irrigation Co. v. Askren - A 9 year old died after igniting blasting powder while playing with is 13 year old brother on the property of Buckeye Irrigation Company. In the dissent of the case the judge stated that Buckeye Irrigation Company was guilty of creating an attractive nuisance. This case serves as good authority for Ms. Herrera, Buckeye Irrigation Company invited the neighboring families to come on their property with their children to picnic, fish and play while the blasting powder was easily accessible giving them the responsibility to maintain the condition upon there land to protect the visiting children. In Ms. Herrera's did not invite families unto her property and held no duty to Maria Malone.
Citation - Buekeye Irrigation Co. v. Askren, 45 Ariz. 566 (1935)
Best Authorities for the Malones
Spur Feeding Co.
v. Fernandez - A three year old's body was found in a auger on Spur feeding company's property, when he and two other minors where roaming on the company's property. The father of the three year old filed a wrongful death lawsuit under the attractive nuisance doctrine. The courts held it was not necessary for a child to have been killed or maimed before there was a notice that children may have been attracted to the machinery because the unloading operation was near a public highway, unfenced and wholly unprotected from intrusion, and plainly visible at a distance so as to have been alluring to children traveling along the road. This case is best used to argue the Malones case that Ms. Herrera did not take reasonable care to protect trespassing children from harming themselves on her property which was near a public highway and there was no fence surrounding the condition where Maria Malone received her
injury.
Citation - Spur Feeding Co. v. Fernandez, 106 Ariz. 143 (1970)