And even a very small child is presumed by the law to understand some dangers -- for example, falling from a height or touching fire. The attractive nuisance doctrine arises when the child doesn't realize the extent of the danger.

Who Is Protected

Very young children are far from the only ones protected by the law. Judges tend to look at each particular case and each individual child's capacity to understand danger. For example, an Alabama court found that a 16-year-old boy may not have understood the dangers of exploring an abandoned clay pit and the owner could be liable when the boy was injured. (Lyle v. Bouler, 547 So. 2d 506 (Ala. 1989).)

Here are some more examples, from actual lawsuits.

Example 1: A 12-year-old child climbed onto the roof of a building to play and fell three stories to the ground. Ruled: The owner was liable, for these reasons:

1. Children were known to play in the area.
2. The roof itself had an area that was sloped and slippery, something that a child would not notice.
3. The owner could easily have locked the door to the roof. (Smallwood by Smallwood v. Fornaciari, 560 N.E. 2d 637 (Ill. App. 1986).)

Example 2: A 10-year-old fell three stories from a roof after climbing up and playing on it. Ruled: The owner was not legally responsible for the child's injuries, because:

1. This owner had no reason to know that children would play on the roof.
2. No hidden danger on the roof itself caused the fall. (Corson by Lontz v. Kosinski, 801 F. Supp. 75 (N.D. Ill. 1992).)

Example 3: During construction of a house, a contractor left sheetrock propped against a wall and unattended. An 11-year-old girl, investigating the building site, was injured when the sheetrock tumbled down on her. Ruled: There were grounds for a lawsuit against the contractor, because:

1. Children were likely to come onto the building site.
2. The sheetrock was left unattended for days.
3. It could have easily been stacked in a safer manner. (Amora v. Lain, 725 S.W.2d 734 (Tex. App. 1986).)