The Attractive Nuisance Doctrine In Arizona

Arizona courts have long recognized claims based on an attractive nuisance, having adopted the elements stated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 339:







Significantly, in at least one case the Arizona Supreme Court has clarified that although a landowner does not generally owe a duty to trespassers to "put land in a condition reasonably safe for their reception," an exception does exist where children are concerned.

Other Arizona courts have clarified that the attractive nuisance doctrine does not apply where the attractive object is natural, such as a shrub or tree, and not placed on the property by the landowner. Moreover, the doctrine applies to child licensees and invitees, not just trespassing children.

Landowners have successfully defended attractive nuisance claims by showing that the child was supervised by an adult when the injury occurred, or that it took an unusual effort for the child to reach the place of danger.

In determining whether a valid claim based on an attractive nuisance might exist, the courts have explained that the purpose of the doctrine is to protect children from dangers that, due to their youth and inexperience, they are unlikely to appreciate.