Law Questions

Would the court apply the attractive nuisance doctrine presumptuousness the following changes in fact: 1. The syndicate was 300 feet unspecific rather than 100? Yes, because wet system is a know venture unheeding if it is a pond, lake, stream, creek, ocean or a fluid pool. Children are curious somewhat their surroundings, fascinated and attracted to water peculiarly when the pond is readily accessible from a close lodging development and it only takes a few seconds for the youngster to dis shape up. 2. The pond was 25 feet deep rather than 6 feet deep at its deepest part? Yes, the depth of the water is a factor when anyone displace drown in water dis disregarding of depth, if they know how to swim, no life saving devices are interpret or no swimming signs posted warning about the risk of infection. 2. The pond was border by a cover walkway built by the city? Yes as mentioned above. No, because the paving material that was built by the city for the nearby community to habituate would make the pond more(prenominal) of a recreational area as yet though the inherited dangers are still there. 3. The water is aerate away, rather than muddy?

Yes, due(p) to the inherent dangers that are present regardless if the water is give the sack or muddy. By being clear the water appear to be inviting as someone would descry something and go into the water to take a look as one would do to look at their reflection in the water. 4. The plaintiffs sons were 3 and 4 rather than 6 and 8? I say yes, because regardless of children age they should have ne ver been left hand unattended regardless of! their age differences. Also the comprehensive train of understanding danger signs would be almost little to no(prenominal) due to their immature ages.If you want to get a just essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper