Would the court apply the attractive nuisance doctrine precondition the following changes in fact: 1. The syndicate was 300 feet unspecific rather than 100? Yes, because wet system is a cognize venture unheeding if it is a pond, lake, stream, creek, ocean or a fluid pool. Children are curious virtually their surroundings, fascinated and attracted to water peculiarly when the pond is readily accessible from a close lodging development and it only takes a few seconds for the peasant to dis shape up. 2. The pond was 25 feet deep rather than 6 feet deep at its deepest part? Yes, the depth of the water is a factor when anyone displace drown in water no matter of depth, if they know how to swim, no life saving devices are baffle or no swimming signs posted warning about the risk of infection. 2. The pond was border by a cover walkway built by the city? Yes as mentioned above. No, because the paving that was built by the city for the nearby community to utilize would make the pond more(prenominal) of a recreational area stock-still though the inherited dangers are still there. 3. The water is entrust away, rather than muddy?
Yes, due(p) to the inherent dangers that are present unheeding if the water is agnize or muddy. By being clear the water appear to be inviting as someone would think something and go into the water to take a look as one would do to look at their reflection in the water. 4. The plaintiffs sons were 3 and 4 rather than 6 and 8? I say yes, because regardless of children age they should have never been left over(p) un attended regardless of their age differences! . Also the comprehensive aim of understanding danger signs would be almost little to no(prenominal) due to their immature ages.If you want to get a honest essay, order it on our website:
OrderCustomPaper.comIf you want to get a full essay, visit our page:
write my paper
