## Facts

- John O. Mozier, Jr. and Nancy G. Mozier visited the rural home of their friends, Charles and Brenda Parsons, with their three-and-a-half-year-old daughter, Emily.
- The Parsons had completed installation of a backyard swimming pool about two weeks earlier.
- On April 21, 1991, the families swam in the pool during the afternoon and then went inside the house for supper.
- After supper, Emily left the house without an adult and was later found floating in the pool.
- Emily had no heartbeat and was not breathing when discovered; resuscitation restored heartbeat and breathing, but she never regained consciousness and died two days later.
- Emily was generally well behaved and was told that day by her parents and Brenda Parsons not to go near the pool without an adult; she was considered old enough to understand that instruction.
- Emily’s parents were present on the premises throughout the visit and had not specifically entrusted Emily’s supervision to the Parsons, though the families informally shared responsibility for watching the children.
- The pool was not fenced and the Parsons had not installed other devices to prevent unsupervised child access (such as door locks or alarms).
- The Parsons’ home sat on a rural 60-acre tract; the nearest house was about a quarter mile away, and the pool was shielded from public view by the house.
- The Moziers sued in federal court, asserting negligence and claiming the pool was an attractive nuisance; the federal court certified to the Kansas Supreme Court a question of Kansas law about whether the attractive nuisance doctrine could be used to establish liability for a child’s injury in a residential swimming pool.

## Issues

1. In a negligence action involving injury to a child, can the attractive nuisance doctrine be used under Kansas law to establish liability when the injury occurred in a residential swimming pool?

## Decision

- No. The Kansas Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative.
- The court stated that, as a general rule, swimming pools—public or private—do not constitute attractive nuisances and are not subject to the attractive nuisance doctrine.
- The court noted a remote possibility that a highly unusual and aggravated swimming-pool situation could warrant consideration of the doctrine, but the certified facts did not present that type of situation.

## Legal Principles

- The attractive nuisance doctrine is a limited exception that may impose liability for harm to children caused by certain dangerous conditions on land when the doctrine’s elements are satisfied (as reflected in Kansas cases and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339).
- Kansas precedent generally treats bodies of water and ordinary water hazards as outside the attractive nuisance doctrine unless an unusual condition or additional artificial feature creates a special risk beyond the obvious danger of water itself.
- A swimming pool, whether public or private, is generally placed in the same category as other common water hazards for purposes of attractive nuisance; it is not in the same class as instrumentalities and locations traditionally treated as attractive nuisances.
- Because the court rejected application of attractive nuisance to an ordinary residential pool, the doctrine cannot be used, on these facts, as the basis to impose negligence liability for the child’s drowning.
- The court’s answer was confined to the certified question; it did not decide any remaining negligence theories or case-dispositive issues beyond the availability of the attractive nuisance doctrine for an ordinary residential swimming pool.

## Conclusion

Mozier v. Parsons holds that, under Kansas law, an ordinary residential swimming pool is generally not an attractive nuisance, so the attractive nuisance doctrine cannot be used to establish liability for a child’s drowning in such a pool absent highly unusual and aggravated circumstances.


Mozier v. Parsons, 887 P.2d 692 (1995)