Negligence: Attractive Nuisance And Unguarded Dangerous Condition

Attractive nuisance

“[O]ne who artificially creates upon his premises any dangerous thing which from its nature has a tendency to attract the childish instincts of children to play with it is bound, as a mere matter of social duty, to take such reasonable precautions as the circumstances admit of, to the end that they may be protected from injury while so playing with it, or Franks v. S. Cotton Oil Co., 78 S.C. 10, 15, 58 S.E.2d 960, 961 (1907) (citing Seymour D. Thompson, 1 Commentaries on the Law of Negligence in all Relations § 1024 (2d ed. 1901) [hereinafter Thompson on Negligence]).coming in its vicinity.”

Ungaurded Dangerous Condition
Quite unlike its counterpart, unguarded dangerous condition disregards the element of attraction; both to the property and to the danger. See Everett v. White, 245 S.C. 331, 335, 140 S.E.2d 582, 584 (1965) (providing that although an artificial condition may not have special attraction for children, when the condition is left so exposed that children are likely to come into contact with it, and where their coming into contact with it is dangerous to them, the person exposing the dangerous thing should anticipate the injury that is likely to happen and is bound to take reasonable pains to prevent it); see also Franks, 78 S.C. at 15, 58 S.E.2d at 961.

Store Sued for Providing Reciept with Card Expiration Date

A customer can sue a store for including her credit card expiration date on her receipt in violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, even though she suffered no actual harm and the store argued it didn’t act willfully, a U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania has ruled.

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.