c
  




§ ÃÃ

Many courts now follow § 339 of the c
  




and hence have discarded the attraction element
to the theory. For these courts, it is sufficient that (1) the injury to the trespassing child was reasonably foreseeable;
(2) the danger on the land presented an unreasonable risk of harm to trespassing children; (3) the danger on the land
was artificial, meaning manmade rather than natural; (4) because of the child¶s youth, he or she could not appreciate
the risks involved or did not discover (and understand) the threat; (5) the threatening condition was located at
a place across which children were likely to trespass; and (6) the land owner failed to exercise reasonable care to
protect trespassing children from the danger that caused the harm. Under this version of attractive nuisance, the
danger did not have to entice the child onto the land. It is adequate that the child encountered and was hurt by a
danger that he or she did not fully discern.p