What Is an Attractive Nuisance Under Mississippi Law?

By Nick Smith
Partner
Mississippi courts have held for decades that swimming pools are not attractive nuisances. A 2016 state law gives an injured child a separate path, and which rule fits your case depends on how your child got hurt.

Your child ended up somewhere he was not supposed to be, he got hurt, and someone is already telling you he should not have been there. An attractive nuisance is a dangerous condition on property that draws children who are too young to understand the risk, and Mississippi law can hold the owner responsible when a child is hurt by one. Our courts apply that rule far more narrowly than most websites suggest, and swimming pools usually fall outside it. Our North Mississippi premises liability attorneys can tell you whether it fits your family’s situation.

Why Mississippi Treats Children Differently From Adult Trespassers

Children do not weigh risk the way adults do. An open pit or a half-finished building is somewhere to explore. Mississippi courts have recognized that since 1928. An owner can be liable when he keeps or allows something dangerous where children can easily reach it, it is the kind of thing that draws them in to play, and the child was too young to understand the danger.

One more requirement decides most cases. Absent special circumstances, our courts will not apply the doctrine unless the hazard was inherently dangerous, and the Supreme Court has pointed to a short list of things that clear that bar:

  • Railroad turntables
  • Live shells, including an unexploded anti-aircraft shell
  • Dynamite and dynamite caps
  • Other explosives, including fireworks
  • Electrical conduits

Most of what a child finds in a neighborhood does not make that list. In 1980, the Court held that a new septic tank was not inherently dangerous, even after a 10 year old boy climbed in and was killed by a falling concrete cover.

Why Swimming Pools Usually Do Not Qualify

A pool is the first thing most parents picture, and it is the clearest example of what Mississippi law leaves out. In 1976, after a 6-year-old drowned at an apartment pool, the Supreme Court held that water hazards are not attractive nuisances and that the doctrine does not extend to swimming pools. It left one opening. A hazard that is hidden or concealed, so a child would not find it and avoid it, can still qualify.

That is a hard rule in practice. In 2002, a 6-year-old crawled through a hole in a pool fence that had been there for about a year and drowned. The Court held that failing to repair the hole was not willful or wanton conduct, meaning a conscious disregard of a known serious danger rather than inattention, and added that the club was not required to have a fence at all.

None of that means water is not dangerous. More children ages 1 to 4 die from drowning than from any other cause in the United States. Courts simply treat open water as a danger children are expected to see. If you have a pool at home, federal safety regulators recommend several layers of barriers between children and the water.

When Can a Property Owner Be Held Liable?

A law that took effect on July 1, 2016 gave injured children a second path. Section 95-5-31 of the Mississippi Code says an owner owes a trespasser nothing beyond not injuring him willfully or wantonly, then carves out an exception for a child injured by an artificial condition, meaning something people built or put there. All five of these have to be true:

  • The owner had reason to know children were likely to trespass there
  • The owner had reason to know the condition posed an unreasonable risk of death or serious injury to a child
  • The child was too young to discover the condition or realize the risk
  • Keeping the condition, and the burden of removing the danger, were slight next to the risk
  • The owner failed to use reasonable care to eliminate the danger or protect the child

Nothing in that test mentions inherently dangerous instrumentalities, so it reads broader than the older court-made doctrine. Two cautions belong with it. The same section says it does not create or increase liability and does not affect common law defenses, and no published Mississippi appellate decision applying it has been located.

Why your child was on the property matters less than parents are often told. The Court of Appeals has held that an owner who would be liable to a trespassing child is also liable to a child who had permission to be there.

What Injuries Do These Cases Involve?

These hazards rarely produce small injuries. The pattern includes drownings and near drownings that leave lasting brain damage, falls from unfinished construction, crushing injuries from stacked material and heavy equipment, burns, and electrical injuries. A child who survives a serious brain injury may need help for the rest of his life, so start documenting the medical picture early and keep it current.

What Should I Do After My Child Is Hurt on Someone Else’s Property?

The proof in these cases sits outdoors, and it does not last. Fences get repaired. Construction sites change within days. If your child has been hurt, these steps help:

  • Get medical care immediately and tell the provider how it happened
  • Photograph the hazard and the way your child got in, the same day, including any fence, gate, latch, lock, or sign, and note whether it worked
  • Write down what the owner or a manager said at the scene
  • Get contact information for anyone who saw it
  • Request the incident or police report

Deadlines matter just as much. Most Mississippi personal injury claims must be filed within three years, and a savings rule lets a person who was a minor when the claim arose file after he is no longer a minor. If the property belongs to a city, county, or school district, the Mississippi Tort Claims Act applies instead. It requires written notice at least 90 days before suit and a lawsuit within one year, and it has its own savings rule for minors. Families who have lost a child face separate rules, which our wrongful death attorneys can walk through.

How Chatham Gilder Howell Pittman Helps North Mississippi Families

Our roots here reach back to 1932, and we know the first thing an insurer says in child injury cases. Your child should not have been there. That is where the questions start. What did the owner know about children in the area? What would it have cost to secure the hazard?

We investigate before the site changes, and we bring in reconstruction and medical professionals when the other side disputes what caused the injury. When you call, you speak with a lawyer, and that is what The Lawyers That Listen means in practice.

Talk With a North Mississippi Premises Liability Attorney

If your child was injured on someone else’s property, the answer depends on details that fade quickly. Contact Chatham Gilder Howell Pittman for a free and confidential consultation with a lawyer today. There are no attorney fees unless we recover compensation for you. We serve families across North Mississippi from offices in Southaven, Hernando, and Memphis.

About the Author
Nick Smith is a Partner at Chatham Gilder Howell Pittman and is admitted to practice law in state courts in Mississippi and Tennessee. He is admitted to practice in the U.S. District Court Northern District of Mississippi. Mr. Smith’s areas of practice include personal injury, criminal defense, and civil litigation, including contract disputes and actions under the Fair Debt Collections Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act. Mr. Smith was hired in 2010 at the Chatham Pittman Law Firm and is now a partner at Chatham Gilder Howell Pittman. If you have any questions about this article, you can contact Mr. Smith through our contact form.