Legal Question in Civil Litigation in Pennsylvania

Re: attractive nusiance

If there were no injuries to the children then I don't think the doctrine of attractive nuisance comes into play. That applies where a child is injured.

"A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land if

(a) the place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and

(b) the condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children, and

(c) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and

(d) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved,and

(e) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children."

I would think, though, that the owner would have some difficulty proving that the children damaged the property in a civil case. If this is a Juvenile case in criminal court, then that's a bit different. In either case, the outcome is heavily dependent upon the facts but the doctrine of attractive nuisance is not involved.