## Facts

- Jeffrey and Stacey Stanley purchased a residence with an unused in-ground swimming pool that had not been used for several years and was originally enclosed by fencing and a brick wall.
- After moving in, the Stanleys drained the pool once but allowed rainwater to accumulate to more than six feet deep; they removed the pool tarp and removed fencing on two sides.
- The pool became stagnant and pond-like, with algae-slimy sides, no ladders, and wildlife present; it functioned as a deep, difficult-to-escape body of water.
- Rickey Bennett and his family rented the neighboring home about 100 feet away; there was some fencing between the properties but with a gap.
- The Stanleys knew the Bennetts had young children and had observed them outside unsupervised; the Stanleys posted no warning or no-trespassing signs.
- On March 20, 1997, Bennett’s three-year-old daughter reported that Bennett’s wife, Cher Bennett, and his five-year-old stepson, Chance Lattea, were drowning; Bennett found them unconscious in the pool, and both later died.
- Investigators concluded Chance likely fell into the pool while looking at frogs and Cher drowned attempting to rescue him.
- Bennett, as estate administrator and custodial parent, sued the Stanleys for negligence and wrongful death, asserting the pool was an attractive nuisance creating an unreasonable risk to children.

## Issues

1. Whether Ohio law imposes a duty of ordinary care under the attractive nuisance doctrine for harm to child trespassers caused by an artificial condition, rather than limiting liability to willful or wanton misconduct toward trespassers.
2. Whether an adult who is injured or killed while attempting to rescue a child from such a danger may invoke the attractive nuisance doctrine and receive the same duty protection as the child.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the court of appeals’ affirmance of summary judgment for the Stanleys and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339 as Ohio law governing liability for physical harm to child trespassers caused by artificial conditions on land.
- The court held that, when § 339’s elements are satisfied, a land possessor owes child trespassers a duty of ordinary care with respect to the artificial condition.
- The court held that an adult injured while attempting to rescue a child from a danger created by the defendant’s negligence may invoke the attractive nuisance doctrine; the rescuer assumes the child’s status for duty purposes.

## Legal Principles

- Ohio applies Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339 to artificial conditions that injure child trespassers; liability may attach if:
  - the possessor knows or has reason to know children are likely to trespass where the condition exists;
  - the possessor knows or should realize the condition poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to children;
  - due to youth, the children do not discover the condition or realize the risk of interacting with it or entering the dangerous area;
  - the utility of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight compared with the risk to children; and
  - the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect the children.
- For qualifying artificial conditions under § 339, the duty is ordinary care, not merely a duty to avoid willful or wanton misconduct.
- An adult rescuer injured while attempting to save a child from a danger created by the defendant’s negligence may rely on the attractive nuisance doctrine and is owed the same duty as the child.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Ohio replaced the categorical “trespasser” limitation for child-injury claims involving artificial conditions by adopting Restatement § 339, requiring reasonable care when its elements are met, and extended that protection to adult rescuers by treating them as having the child’s status for duty analysis.


Bennett v. Stanley, 92 Ohio St. 3d 35, 748 N.E.2d 41 (Ohio 2001)