you should use CREAC to effectively communicate that analysis.

The issue: Does Lissa Hall have a claim under the attractive nuisance doctrine against CCI Developments, the construction company that owns the land where she was injured?

Scenario:

Your client is a child, Lissa Hall. Her parents have come to you because she was injured on a construction site that was being developed in her neighborhood. The owner of the land, CCI Developments (CCI), had cleared the site and had dug the area for the building's foundation. The dirt had not yet been carried away, so it was piled up fifteen feet high. The area was surrounded with yellow tape marked "Keep Out." Lissa was not familiar with construction sites, so she ducked under the yellow tape and went to investigate. She climbed on top of the dirt pile, lost her footing, and fell to the bottom of the foundation. In the fall, she broke her collarbone and experienced severe trauma. She was nine years old at the time of the accident.

The potential legal claim is for attractive nuisance. This is a tort law doctrine. This doctrine imposes liability on landowners for injuries to children who trespass on their land, if certain conditions are met. Those conditions are the elements a plaintiff needs to prove in order to recover on such a claim. In this scenario, which is loosely based on traditional common law, there are four elements. Thus, our client, Lissa, would have to prove all four elements to have a claim. These elements are listed and explained in the case law.