Joel Cruz probably has no cause of action under the attractive nuisance doctrine. Joel Cruz probably cannot make a prima facie showing for two elements of the attractive nuisance doctrine; he will likely not have a claim against Rutherford Country Club. Illinois law permits injured parties to recover damages, under the attractive nuisance doctrine, from a possessor of land who may be liable for trespassing children. The elements Joel Cruz still needs to show a cause of action for are (1) the quarry banks he fell into were an artificial condition upon the land; (6) Rutherford failed to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger to children. Stark v. Lowe’s Companies, INC. (Ill. 1998). This memorandum will examine the first and last element of the attractive nuisance doctrine. The issues at-hand are (A) whether the quarry banks Joel Cruz fell into were an artificial condition upon the land and (B) whether Rutherford failed to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger of the quarry banks to children.
A. The quarry banks Cruz fell into were not an artificial condition upon …show more content…
Cohle. There also were “No Trespassing” signs however, the fence was kept in a dire condition and allowed any person walking by to see through it. Cohle. Boards were missing in multiple sections of the fence and one section was wide enough for children to fit through and enter the reservoir. Cohle. The poorly maintained fence was in a dire state at least 10 days before the child drowned. Cohle. The court concluded that “[t]he appellant failed in its duty to exercise reasonable care . . . when it permitted this fence to get into a condition of despair.” Cohle. The court reasoned that although the appellants had taken some precautionary steps by putting up a fence, they ultimately destroyed the real purpose of the fence.