North Carolina Personal Injury Glossary

Attractive Nuisance

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.

Get A Free Consultation

Call or Text (478) 887-3734No Fee Unless We WinServing All of North Carolina
Definition
An attractive nuisance is a dangerous artificial condition on land, such as an unfenced swimming pool or abandoned equipment, that is likely to attract children who cannot appreciate the risk. In North Carolina the doctrine is written into N.C. Gen. Stat. § 38B-3, which makes a land possessor liable to a child trespasser under 14 when five statutory conditions are met.

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.

What Is An Attractive Nuisance?

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.

Plain English: if you keep something dangerous on your property that children are likely to get to and unlikely to understand, you have to take reasonable steps to protect them, even though they are trespassing.

How Does North Carolina Law Define The Attractive Nuisance Rule?

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
The five conditions of North Carolina’s child trespasser rule (§ 38B-3(2))

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.

What Must A North Carolina Property Owner Do About An Attractive Nuisance?

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.

  • Fence and lock pools, pits, and equipment yards.
  • Remove or disable abandoned appliances, vehicles, and machinery.
  • Secure ladders, chemicals, and tools on construction sites after hours.
  • Act on warning signs: evidence that children have been coming onto the property raises the duty.

Can A Child’s Own Fault Defeat An Attractive Nuisance Claim In North Carolina?

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.

What Should Parents Do After A Child Is Hurt On Someone Else’s Property?

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.

Attorney Joshua E. Palmer
About the Author

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.

  • J.D., North Carolina Central University School of Law (Durham, NC)
  • Managing Partner, Joshua E. Palmer, Attorney at Law
  • Selected to Super Lawyers Rising Stars, 2026
In Short

Key Facts About Attractive Nuisance in North Carolina

  • An attractive nuisance is a dangerous artificial condition, such as an unfenced pool or abandoned equipment, that children are likely to reach and unlikely to understand.
  • North Carolina landowners generally owe trespassers no duty of care under § 38B-2, but § 38B-3 creates an exception for child trespassers.
  • The exception applies to children under 14, or with the mental development of a child under 14, and requires five statutory conditions.
  • Liability usually turns on whether the owner could have removed or guarded the danger at a burden that was slight compared with the risk.
  • Under the rule of sevens, children under seven cannot be contributorily negligent, and children from seven to fourteen are presumed incapable of it.
Talk to a Lawyer

Questions About Attractive Nuisance? Get A Free Consultation

Was your child injured on someone else’s property in North Carolina? Call for a free consultation while the evidence is still there.

Call or Text Any Time
Free case review. No fee unless we win.

(478) 887-3734

Joshua E. Palmer, Attorney at Law
106 Moran Dr #5106, Bonaire, GA 31005

Map & Directions  ·  Contact Us Online

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.

Common Questions

Attractive Nuisance: Frequently Asked Questions

What is an attractive nuisance in simple terms?
It is something dangerous and man-made on a property, like a swimming pool or old machinery, that children are likely to get to and too young to recognize as dangerous. The owner must take reasonable steps to protect children from it.
Is a swimming pool an attractive nuisance in North Carolina?
A pool is an artificial condition and the most common example. Whether the owner is liable depends on the five conditions in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 38B-3, including whether children were likely to trespass there and whether the owner used reasonable care, such as fencing and a locked gate.
Does a property owner owe a duty to trespassers in North Carolina?
Generally no. Under the Trespasser Responsibility Act a possessor of land owes no duty of care to a trespasser, with exceptions for intentional or willful harm, trespassers discovered in a position of peril, and child trespassers injured by artificial conditions.
What age does the attractive nuisance rule cover in North Carolina?
The statute protects a child trespasser, defined as a trespasser less than 14 years old or one who has the level of mental development found in a person less than 14.
Does a No Trespassing sign protect the owner from an attractive nuisance claim?
Not by itself. A young child may be unable to read or understand a sign. The statute asks whether the owner used reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect children, and a sign is only one piece of evidence on that question.
Free Consultation

A Child Was Hurt on Unsafe Property

We investigate the hazard, the owner’s knowledge, and the insurance before the evidence disappears. Free consultation, no fee unless we win.

Serving All of North CarolinaNo Fee Unless We WinFree Case Review

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

Areas We Serve