Most likely you will be responsible

There is a difference for landower liable owed to a trespasser and an adult trepasser. For adult trespasser, as long as you don't create an artificial condition to harm them you are probably ok. For children, it is difficult to apply such standard because they are underage.

Here is a case from Ohio decided in 2001: Bennett v. Stanley, 92 Ohio St.3d 35, 748 N.E.2d 41 (2001. Bennett lived next door from Stanley, who had a swimming pool in the backyard. Although Stanley put a fence along the pool there was a gap in the fance so that children could get in. One day Bennett got in, fell in the pool and got drowned. His mother jumped in to save him and was also drowned. Stanley was sued for negligence. In reversing both the trial court and appeal court's decision to grant defendant's motion to dismiss, it adopted the attractice nuisance doctrine, in place of turntable doctrine. Restatement of Torts (2nd), section 339 listed several factors to hold a land owner liable to child trespasser, including the age and experience of the child in not appeciating the danger, the knowledge of the land owner of the trespasser, the cost to fix the condition, etc.

How deep is the pond? Can children get drowned if they fall in? If you know children trespassers will come to play, you better fix it by erecting a fence or something. An indemnity clause will probably not save you because it can be offered to show your knowledge of the danger and it is up to the court to decide whether the hold it.

所有跟帖： 

• thanks for your reply -pigletto- ♀ (395 bytes) () 10/16/2008 postreply 16:58:20

• 回複：thanks for your reply -apt- ♂ (337 bytes) () 10/16/2008 postreply 19:26:02