{ "id": 1734204, "name": "Crawford v. Cox Planing Mill & Lumber Co.", "name_abbreviation": "Crawford v. Cox Planing Mill & Lumber Co.", "decision_date": "1964-11-02", "docket_number": "5-3360", "first_page": "588", "last_page": "590", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "238 Ark. 588" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "383 S.W.2d 291" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "112 S.W. 2d 966", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 Ark. 535", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8722386 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/195/0535-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 S.W. 816", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "97 Ark. 160", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1318778 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/97/0160-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 A.L.R. 252", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "44 A.L.R. 2d 1258", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "237 Ark. 500", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1737983 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/237/0500-01" ] }, { "cite": "227 Ark. 470", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1705635 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/227/0470-01" ] }, { "cite": "218 Ark. 575", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1612019 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/218/0575-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 S.W. 2d 353", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "185 Ark. 678", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1435282 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/185/0678-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 S.W. 2d 17", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 Ark. 616", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1441787 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/183/0616-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 S.W. 855", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "129 Ark. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1580452 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/129/0001-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 347, "char_count": 4277, "ocr_confidence": 0.498, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.9433211909064e-08, "percentile": 0.3705770104743558 }, "sha256": "aea11de57e5362d3c1a00e55edeb81ab2096cdbe4bb636c95e087eaa67debce0", "simhash": "1:fe2ecee76021d88c", "word_count": 693 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:48:57.788571+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Crawford v. Cox Planing Mill & Lumber Co." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Frank Holt, Associate Justice.\nThe trial court sustained appellees\u2019 demurrers to the appellants\u2019 amended complaint. On appeal the only issue is whether appellants \u2019 amended complaint stated a-cause of action under the doctrine of attractive nuisance.\nThe appellant alleged that the \u201cminor\u201d child [no age stated] was injured when he fell from an unguarded scaffold while playing the game of hide-and-seek on a Sunday afternoon in a construction area on public school grounds where no warning signs or barricades of any nature existed. The plaintiff\u2019s complaint further stated:\n\u201cThe unfinished walls of buildings under construction and the scaffolding erected adjacent thereto by or at the. direction' of the defendants, while they may have been relatively safe for experienced artisans of mature judgment, were so narrow in width and unstable in structure as to be a definite and positive hazard to young children without experience or knowledge of their latent dangers, in that the flooring of said scaffolding would spring up and down and slip upon its base in such a manner as to cause such a child to lose his balance and equilibrium and unpredictable movements of the flooring of said scaffolding, unforeseeable by a child, did cause Glenn Crawford, a minor, to fall and resulted in his injuries.\u201d\nWe have recognized and applied the doctrine of attractive nuisance in permitting recovery for injuries to children where instrumentalities or conditions of any kind exist that attract and injure children who are too young or immature to realize the existence of its dangerous character. Foster v. Lusk, 129 Ark. 1, 194 S.W. 855; Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana v. Dumas, 183 Ark. 616, 38 S.W. 2d 17; Arkansas Power & Light Co., v. Kilpatrick, 185 Ark. 678, 49 S.W. 2d 353.\nIn other instances we have refused the application of this doctrine because of the character of the instrumentality and maturity of the child. Garrett v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 218 Ark. 575, 237 S.W. 2d 895; Carmichael v. Little Rock Housing Authority, 227 Ark. 470, 299 S.W. 2d 198, and Jones v. Comer, 237 Ark. 500, 374 S.W. 2d 465.\nThe doctrine of attractive nuisance is intended for the protection and benefit of children of such a tender age that they are incapable of exercising sufficient judgment and discretion to avoid a danger or peril.\nIn the case at bar, since the demurrers to appellant\u2019s complaint were sustained, we must consider the alleged facts as being true. However, in accordance with the general rules the appellant must allege shfficient facts in the complaint to invoke the doctrine of attractive nuisance.\nBuildings under construction ordinarily are not regarded as coming within the doctrine of attractive nuisance so as to impose liability for injury to trespassing children. 65 C.J.S., Negligence, \u00a7 29, 475; Annotation, 44 A.L.R. 2d 1258; 36 A.L.R. 252.\nThe attractiveness of an instrumentality itself is not sufficient to invoke the doctrine. In addition to attractiveness, it must be shown that the object, instrumentality, or conditions are so dangerous to a child that precautionary measures are required. Arkansas Valley Trust Co., v. McIlroy, 97 Ark. 160, 133 S.W. 816. If every instrumentality that is attractive to a venturesome boy and, also, has an element of danger about it constitutes an attractive nuisance then there is no limit to its application. Perils or dangers, such as exist from climbing, are' obviously known to children who are old enough to be unattended and capable of venturesome conduct. Any child capable of climbing knows that if he falls from a fence, a tree, or any elevated structure injury can result. Senders v. Baird, 195 Ark. 535, 112 S.W. 2d 966.\nIn the case at bar the scaffold embodied no perils not readily apparent to children capable of responding to their natural climbing instincts. It was not such a dangerous instrumentality that it comes.within the scope of the doctrine of attractive nuisance. Therefore, the allegations of the complaint constituted no submissible issue for' the jury.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Frank Holt, Associate Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Ward & Mooney, for appellant.", "Rose, Meek, House, Barron, Nash & Williams, Frier-son, Walker <& Snellgrove, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Crawford v. Cox Planing Mill & Lumber Co.\n5-3360\n383 S. W. 2d 291\nOpinion delivered November 2, 1964.\nWard & Mooney, for appellant.\nRose, Meek, House, Barron, Nash & Williams, Frier-son, Walker <& Snellgrove, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0588-01", "first_page_order": 612, "last_page_order": 614 }