Legal Opinion

Fitch v. Selwyn Village, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 12, 1951No. 530PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDeNny, J.

Tbe overwhelming weight of authority in this country is to tbe effect tbat ponds, pools, lakes, streams, reservoirs, and other bodies ■of water, do not per se constitute attractive nuisances. 56 Am. Jur., Waters, section 436, page 850. “Tbe attractive nuisance doctrine generally is not applicable to bodies of water, artificial as well as natural, In tbe absence of some unusual condition or artificial feature other than tbe mere water and its location.” 65 O.J.S., Negligence, section 29 (12) j, page 475. . _ '. _ It is, therefore, not negligence per se to maintain an unenclosed pond, pool,…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Peters v. BowmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Beeson v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  3. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. ComptonArizona Supreme Court · 1932
  4. McCall v. McCallieCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1933
  5. Gurley v. Southern Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1916

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Nelson v. FreelandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1998
  2. Lockridge v. Standard Oil Co., Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1953
  3. Wiles v. MetzgerNebraska Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Ford Ex Rel. Ford v. Blythe Bros.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  5. Anneker v. Quinn-Robbins Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1958

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API