HIDALGO ENTERPRISES, INC. vs. BALANDAN [G.R. No. L-3422, June 13, 1952]

 CASE DIGEST

HIDALGO ENTERPRISES, INC. vs. BALANDAN

G.R. No. L-3422, June 13, 1952

EN BANC, BENGZON, J.

 

Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance

One who maintains on his premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser in the premises. 

 

Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. owned an ice-plant factory with two deep water tanks for cooling. The tanks lacked fences or covers, and the factory premises were accessible. A boy, Mario Balandan, about 8 years old, entered the factory with friends to swim in a tank. Unfortunately, Mario drowned in the tank.

Whether or not the doctrine of attractive nuisance is applicable in this case.

NO. The doctrine of attractive nuisance states that “One who maintains on his premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser in the premises”.

The doctrine states that if a dangerous object on one's premises could attract children to play with it, the owner must take precautions to prevent accidents, even if the children are trespassing.

But in this case, water tanks are not classified as attractive nuisances. American Jurisprudence shows us that the attractive nuisance doctrine generally is not applicable to bodies of water, like swimming pools and ponds, artificial as well as natural, in the absence of some unusual condition or artificial feature other than the mere water and its location. These are known hazards and children are presumed to understand the danger.

 CLICK TO VIEW FULL TEXT