## Facts

- David B. Wilford and Clyde K. Wilford sued homeowners Wallace H. Little and Julia W. Little for wrongful death after the Wilfords’ four-and-a-half-year-old son drowned in defendants’ backyard swimming pool.
- The amended complaint alleged the pool contained water about nine feet deep at one end and had a diving board extending over the water.
- Children allegedly played on adjacent property, could see the pool and diving board, and were attracted onto defendants’ property by them; defendants allegedly knew children could see the pool area.
- The child and another boy played on the diving board, alleged to have an up-and-down motion like a teeter-board.
- The pool was alleged to be constructed so that it was difficult for a child to hold onto the sides, and the children were too young to appreciate the danger.
- During play, the child allegedly fell or jumped into the pool and drowned.
- Plaintiffs alleged they did not know of the pool’s existence and that the property was not fenced or enclosed; a fence or enclosure allegedly could have been installed at relatively small cost.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendants’ failure to fence or enclose the pool was negligent and sought damages and expenses, relying on an “attractive nuisance” theory.

## Issues

1. Whether an unfenced private residential swimming pool and diving board can qualify as an attractive nuisance under California law, imposing liability to a trespassing child.
2. Whether the amended complaint alleged facts sufficient to state a cause of action and survive a demurrer.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of dismissal after the trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer to the amended complaint with leave to amend and plaintiffs declined to amend further.
- The court held that a swimming pool and diving board are not an attractive nuisance under California law.
- Because the alleged condition was treated as an ordinary water hazard, the amended complaint did not state a cause of action based on attractive nuisance.

## Legal Principles

- California’s attractive nuisance doctrine, as applied by its courts, does not extend to ordinary bodies of water and similar water hazards, even if visible and enticing to children.
- A residential swimming pool is treated like other open and obvious water conditions presenting the ordinary risk of drowning, not a special or trap-like hazard triggering attractive nuisance liability.
- Features such as a diving board or pool design allegations, without more, do not convert a water hazard into an attractive nuisance under California precedent.
- On demurrer, courts assume pleaded facts are true but may dismiss where, as a matter of law, those facts do not establish a duty under the asserted doctrine.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that an unfenced backyard swimming pool with a diving board does not constitute an attractive nuisance under California law and therefore does not create liability to trespassing children on that theory; the demurrer was properly sustained and the dismissal affirmed.


Wilford v. Little, 144 Cal. App. 2d 477, 301 P.2d 282 (Cal. Ct. App. 1956)