Click here to skip to main content.
scenic picture from Washington state
SUBJECTSLEGALNUISANCES › Historical Note on Attractive Nuisances in Washington
Updated 01/07

Historical Note on Attractive Nuisances in Washington

The first Washington case in which the attractive nuisance doctrine was involved was in 1890, Ilwaco, etc., Nav. Co. v.. Hedrick, 1 Wash.446 (1890). An action was taken against a railway company for the death of a child, caused by negligence of the company in leaving a turn-table unfastened. It was shown that the agent knew children were attracted to the machine and were in the habit of playing on it and that the method of securing it had in the past proved insufficient. The Washington Supreme Court slowly evolved the limits of the attractive nuisance doctrine and in a 1940 case, Schock v. Ringling Bros. 5 Wash 2d 599 (1940) the court listed five elements that must be present to make the "attractive nuisance" doctrine applicable to a given case. (1) The instrumentality or condition must be dangerous in itself, that is, it must be an agency which is likely to, or probably will, result in injury to those attracted by, and coming in contact with, it; (2) it must be attractive and alluring, or enticing, to young children; (3) the children must have been incapable, by reason of their youth, of comprehending the danger involved; (4) the instrumentality or condition must have been left unguarded and exposed at a place where children of tender years are accustomed to resort, or where it is reasonably to be expected that they will resort, for play or amusement, or for the gratification of youthful curiosity; and (5) it must have been reasonably practicable and feasible either to prevent access to the instrumentality of condition, or else to render it innocuous, without obstructing any reasonable purpose or use for which it was intended.  From The Attractive Nuisances Doctrine in Washington,   L.R. Bonneville, Jr., Washington Law Review, vol.22 (February 1947)

The doctrine of attractive nuisance has not changed radically over the years. Two more recent cases are: Ochampaugh v. Seattle, 91 Wn.2d 514 (1979) and Schneider v. Seattle 24 Wn. App. 251 (1979). On the general topic of nuisances, see the March 2000 MRSC publication Nuisance Regulation for Washington Cities and Counties ( 600 KB).