Property owners generally owe trespassers nothing. Children are the exception. Here is when North Carolina holds an owner responsible for a child hurt by a pool, a machine, or another man-made danger.
Also called: attractive nuisance doctrine, child trespasser rule, turntable doctrine
The law expects adults to stay off other people’s property and to look out for themselves if they do not. It does not expect the same of a six-year-old. Children wander, climb, and explore, and they do not see danger where an adult would. The attractive nuisance doctrine grew from that common-sense observation: a landowner who keeps something on the property that is both dangerous and likely to draw children must take reasonable steps to keep them from being hurt by it.
North Carolina turned the doctrine into statute in 2011 as part of the Trespasser Responsibility Act. The Act first states that landowners owe trespassers no duty of care, then carves out a specific exception for trespassing children. Joshua E. Palmer, Attorney at Law prepared this page to explain that exception, what counts as an attractive nuisance, and how fault is evaluated when the injured person is a child.
An attractive nuisance is a man-made hazard that a child is likely to encounter and unlikely to understand. Swimming pools are the standard example. Others include construction sites, excavations, abandoned vehicles and appliances, machinery, and unsecured equipment. The word “attractive” is a little misleading: under the modern rule the child does not have to have been lured onto the land by the hazard itself. What matters is that children were likely to be there and that the condition posed a serious danger they would not recognize.
The doctrine applies to artificial conditions, meaning things people build or place on land. It is an exception to the general rule about trespassers, so it comes into play only when the child was on the property without permission. A child who was invited, such as a guest at a pool party, is a lawful visitor and is owed reasonable care without any special doctrine.
The starting point is N.C. Gen. Stat. § 38B-2: a possessor of land, including an owner, lessee, or other occupant, does not owe a duty of care to a trespasser and is not subject to liability for a trespasser’s injury. The exceptions follow in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 38B-3. One covers intentional harm and willful or wanton conduct. One covers a trespasser the possessor discovers in a position of peril. The third is the child trespasser rule for harms caused by an artificial condition.
Under that rule, a possessor may be liable for bodily injury or death to a child trespasser only if all five statutory conditions apply. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 38B-4 defines a child trespasser as a trespasser who is less than 14 years old or who has the level of mental development found in a person less than 14.
| Condition | What the injured child’s family must show |
|---|---|
| Children likely to trespass | The possessor knew or had reason to know that children were likely to trespass at the location of the condition |
| Unreasonable risk | The possessor knew or reasonably should have known the condition involved an unreasonable risk of serious bodily injury or death to such children |
| Child did not appreciate the danger | The injured child did not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in it or in coming near it |
| Slight burden compared with the risk | The usefulness of keeping the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger were slight compared with the risk to the child |
| Failure to use reasonable care | The possessor failed to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect the child |
All five conditions must be met. The rule applies to artificial conditions and to trespassers under 14 or with the mental development of a child under 14.
Use reasonable care, measured against the risk. The statute does not require a property owner to make land childproof. It asks whether the danger could have been removed or guarded at a burden that was slight compared with the risk of serious injury or death. A locked gate around a pool, a cover on a well, a fence around an excavation, and keys taken out of equipment are inexpensive compared with a child’s life, which is why the failure to take such steps is the usual basis for liability.
The owner’s knowledge matters too. The rule applies when the possessor knew or had reason to know that children were likely to come onto that part of the property. A pool behind a house in a neighborhood full of children, or equipment stored beside a school bus stop, is judged differently from the same hazard on remote, posted land.
Contributory negligence, the rule that bars an adult’s claim when the adult’s own negligence contributed to the injury, applies differently to children. Under North Carolina’s rule of sevens, a child under seven is incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law. A child between seven and fourteen is presumed incapable, and the defense has to overcome that presumption with evidence about the particular child’s age, intelligence, and experience. The statute builds in a related question: the claim requires that the child did not discover the condition or realize the risk.
These protections line up with the statute’s age limit. For a teenager of fourteen or older, the child trespasser exception does not apply at all unless the teenager has the mental development of a younger child, and the general no-duty rule for trespassers controls.
Get medical care first, then preserve the evidence. Photograph the hazard, the fence or lack of one, gates, locks, and signs, because property owners often fix these things within days. Write down who knew children played there. Homeowner’s and commercial property insurance usually covers these claims, and insurers investigate them quickly.
Time limits are more forgiving for the child than for the parents. A minor’s own injury claim is generally tolled under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-17 until age 18, but the parents’ claim for the child’s medical expenses is subject to the ordinary three-year period in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(16), and the evidence will not wait. Any settlement for the child will require a guardian ad litem and court approval.

Joshua E. Palmer
Managing Partner · Joshua E. Palmer, Attorney at Law
Attorney Palmer concentrates in personal injury law and trained in North Carolina law at North Carolina Central University School of Law in Durham. This glossary explains the terms he uses with clients every day, in plain English and with the North Carolina rule that applies.
Was your child injured on someone else’s property in North Carolina? Call for a free consultation while the evidence is still there.
Responsible attorney: Joshua E. Palmer, Managing Partner · 106 Moran Dr #5106, Bonaire, GA 31005 · (478) 887-3734. Attorney advertising. This page is general legal information about North Carolina law, not legal advice for your situation; contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship.
We investigate the hazard, the owner’s knowledge, and the insurance before the evidence disappears. Free consultation, no fee unless we win.
Each case is different. Any results, settlement figures, or benefit amounts described on this page depend on the specific facts of that case and do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in yours. Statutes and benefit rates cited are current as of October 2026; confirm current law with an attorney before relying on it.
📞 Get A Free Consultation · (478) 887-3734