Classless Lawyers

[xxlt]

(05-05-2016, 12:49 AM)fredtoast Wrote: In order for liability to attach because of an "attractive nuisance" there usually has to be something inherently dangerous i.e. deep water, a tall structure or dangerous equipment that is easy to climb, an open pit, etc.  I don't think there is anything inherently dangerous about a cemetery, so if it was just posted that the cemetery was closed at a certain time I don't think it would be required that the gates were locked.  I know of lots of public areas that are posted as being closed that are not sealed shut by locked gates.  It just is not that easy to hols a property owner was responsible for injury tyo a trespasser. 

As for the caretaker I don't know how much proof the jury heard that he allowed parties in the cemetery, but again, if was not like he was allowing kids to do something dangerous like cliff diving or drag racing, so I don't know if he could be held liable just because he knew they might be there.  And he was not the one who provided the alcohol. It could be that he had some liability, but there would have to be a lot more facts than I have heard so far.  

Brad has already mentioned what was inherently dangerous - the roads within the cemetery. And, everything you named - water, tall structures, dangerous equipment, open pits - is commonly found in cemeteries as well. So, yes, a cemetery is an inherently dangerous place and this one was too. Of course all the facts - exactly what was there, exactly how the road was laid out, the light level, etc. would need to be explored at trial - but to suggest the caretaker and his employer had little to no responsibility based on the facts we already know... well as Andy Dufresne said, "... are you just being obtuse?"