Fairview Township v. Schaefer

I must respectfully dissent. In this case, the majority affirms a trial court’s grant of a mandatory injunction.1 It finds that the Appellant’s maintenance of a caged tiger at his residence constitutes a nuisance in fact, which it characterizes as an “attractive nuisance.”

Firstly, I submit that the doctrine of attractive nuisance is wholly inapplicable to the facts of this case. Section 339 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which has been adopted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court,2 establishes a theory by which liability may be imposed upon a landowner for injuries to children who come…