Gregory v. Johnson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that dangers of fire, falling from heights, and water are normally understood by children absent other factors creating additional risks of harm or foreseeable dangers to children who cannot appreciate the nature of the harm”
• finding the approach of the Restatement to be sound and not in conflict with the doctrine as first expressed in Ferguson v. Columbus & Rome Ry., 75 Ga. 637 (1885), but apparently retaining the Ferguson rule
• A landowner has a duty only “to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable injury” from an “attractive nuisance” on the premises. (emphasis in original)
• A landowner has a duty only “to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable injury” from an “attractive nuisance” on the premises. (emphasis in original)
• jury issue existed over whether residential swimming pool constituted attractive nuisance, where there was evidence that “young children were known to be in the vicinity of the pool and that the [homeowners] had been warned about the presence of children”
• no question that uninvited child was a trespasser

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).