Five elements of the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine:

1) 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 2) The condition is one 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 injury to such children, and 3) 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 4) 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 5) The possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.

Mrs. Thompsons arguments to each of the five elements of the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine are as follows:
1) Mrs. Thompson knew the likelihood of trespassers since she previously witnessed the teens

swimming her pool.

2) Mrs. Thompsons pool does not constitute as an unreasonable risk of death because it

was an ordinary pool that had no unusual or hidden danger as described under Section 339 of the Restatement in Glover v. Oakwood Terrace Associated II Ltd. Her pool was in a good state of repair with proper depth markings. 3) The inability to comprehend the risk of a common pool is absent in this case. The teenage boy most likely understood and appreciated the risk that came with diving into the pool. He was old enough to read the No Diving sign that Mrs. Thompson installed and able to infer that he was not welcome because her gate was locked. As described in the Glover v. Oakwood Terrace Associated II Ltd. case, the Doctrine does not apply to situations where the condition causing the harm is a common and obvious danger. Thus, a pools obvious danger, as opposed to a hidden danger (which was not present in this case), can be discovered by a boy of his age. 4) Mrs. Thompson took precautions within reasonable limits. Her yard was surrounded by a fence that meets fencing standards; she locked the fence gate, and hung a No Diving sign near the pool. The next step would be to have a security system to detect the boys breaking through her locked gate or maintain a full-time lifeguard. However, those options are an unreasonable burden to eliminate the danger of a common backyard pool. 5) Mrs. Thompson took precautions to prevent the teenaged boys from entering her yard. She had a fence, locked gate, No Diving sign, and never gave the boys consent to swim in her pool. A boy his age should have the mental capacity to understand the risks involved in swimming in a pool.