## Facts

- Kaiser Company owned industrial premises in Stockton, California with large piles of sand and gravel and an adjacent conveyor belt.
- Portions of the sand/gravel piles and conveyor area were unfenced and unguarded (no fences, guards, or railings).
- A nearby road or path ran close to the piles; children commonly played on the piles and around the conveyor belt.
- Kaiser allegedly knew or should have known children habitually played there and that the conditions posed an unreasonable risk of serious harm.
- On August 20, 1953, plaintiff’s 10-year-old son was digging in a sand pile when it collapsed, burying and asphyxiating him.
- Plaintiff filed a wrongful-death action alleging liability under the attractive nuisance doctrine based on failure to take protective measures (e.g., fencing/guarding).

## Issues

1. Whether the pleaded facts brought the case within California’s attractive nuisance doctrine, creating a duty to protect a child trespasser/licensee from injury caused by collapsing sand piles.
2. Whether, absent attractive nuisance, a landowner owes a child licensee a duty of reasonable care to guard or fence a dangerous condition, or only a duty to avoid willful or wanton injury.
3. Whether the trial court properly sustained a demurrer to the third amended complaint without leave to amend.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Kaiser Company.
- The court held, as a matter of law, the allegations did not state a cause of action under the attractive nuisance doctrine.
- Treating the child as a licensee, the court held Kaiser owed no duty to protect him from a mere condition/defect of the premises absent willful or wanton misconduct.
- The demurrer to the third amended complaint was properly sustained without leave to amend.

## Legal Principles

- When material facts are undisputed, whether they fall within the attractive nuisance doctrine is a question of law for the court.
- A landowner who merely permits entry (passive acquiescence) generally owes a bare licensee no duty of ordinary care to make the premises safe or to protect against defects/conditions; the licensee assumes the risk of such conditions.
- The landowner’s duty to a licensee is limited to refraining from willful or wanton injury.
- California’s attractive nuisance doctrine is limited and does not impose liability for ordinary conditions (such as sand/gravel piles) simply because children are drawn to them and may be harmed.

## Conclusion

The court held that a child’s death from a collapsing sand pile on industrial property did not fit within California’s attractive nuisance doctrine, and because the child was at most a licensee, the landowner had no negligence liability absent willful or wanton conduct; the demurrer without leave to amend was affirmed.


Knight v. Kaiser Co., 48 Cal. 2d 778, 312 P.2d 1089 (Cal. 1957)