A doctrine treating a child as a licensee, or guest, rather than a trespasser on land containing an artificial and harmful condition that is certain to attract children.

• A. Attractive nuisance doctrine
• B. Nuisance
• C. Express license
• D. Trespasser

Answer: (A)

This question tests the attractive nuisance doctrine. It addresses how a landowner’s duty changes when a dangerous, artificial condition on property is likely to attract children. Even if a child is trespassing, the owner must take reasonable steps to prevent harm from such conditions because children may not appreciate the danger or recognize the risk.

Key idea: the condition is artificial and likely to attract children, the owner knows or should know that children are present or will be drawn to it, and the owner has a duty to guard, remove, or warn about the hazard. If the owner fails to take reasonable precautions and a child is injured, liability can attach.

That’s why the correct choice is the attractive nuisance doctrine. The other options describe broader or different concepts: nuisance involves interference with enjoyment of land, an express license is explicit permission to enter, and a trespasser is someone on the land without permission—none of these capture the special duty owed to children around artificial dangers.