S.W. ex rel. Wacker v. Towers Boat Club, Inc.

126 I agree with the majority that we have not limited our attractive nuisance doe-trine to trespassers. Maj. op. ¶ 14. However, the majority's holding does not help the plaintiffs in this case. That is because attractive nuisance plaintiffs must, among other things, satisfy the test for licensees. The majority implicitly recognizes this fact when it states that the court of appeals erred in concluding that the landowner's duty under the doctrine is that owed to an invitee. Maj. op. ¶¶ 21-23. I would take the majority's rationale to its logical conclusion and hold that, because the…