What is the attractive nuisance doctrine in California?

What the Law Says

California courts have explicitly rejected the common law 'attractive nuisance' doctrine as an independent basis for liability. Instead, landowners owe a duty of reasonable care to all persons—including children—under general negligence law. Liability depends on foreseeability, the nature of the danger, and whether the owner acted reasonably to prevent harm.

The California Supreme Court abolished the attractive nuisance doctrine in 1970 in the landmark case Rowland v. Christian. The court held that the traditional categories of invitee, licensee, and trespasser—and doctrines like attractive nuisance—should not limit a landowner’s duty of care.

Under California Civil Code § 1714(a), 'Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person.' This statute establishes the foundation for negligence-based liability, including cases involving child injuries on property.

Courts apply a flexible, case-by-case analysis using factors such as the foreseeability of harm, the degree of certainty of injury, the closeness of the connection between conduct and injury, and the moral blame attached to the conduct (from Rowland v. Christian).

Statutory Text

Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person.

— Cal. Civ. Code § 1714(a) — General principle of liability

What Courts Have Said

California courts have consistently declined to revive or apply the attractive nuisance doctrine, emphasizing instead a unified negligence standard applicable to all plaintiffs—including children.

What to Do

Sources