Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bloodworth v. Stuart Ex Rel. Stuart

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided April 8, 1968Published

1DissentDyeb, Justice

I agree with the majority opinion the trial judge was in error in not directing a verdict for the defendant upon the count in the declaration embracing the doctrine of attractive nuisance. My agreement on this point is predicated upon the fact it is generally held that the doctrine of attractive nuisance is not applicable to ordinary construction. The construction here is shown to be ordinary block and brick, one-story classrooms, added to existing similar classrooms and I do not think such construction, absent something unusual, not shown here, could be found as a matter of law to be within…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Tennessee Central Railway Co. v. UmenstetterTennessee Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Wilson v. TranbargerTennessee Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Holder v. MartinTennessee Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Crawford v. Cox Planing Mill & Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1964

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API