BONA, Claire Margarette M.

TORTS AND DAMAGES Tuesday, 5:00 – 7:00 PM

HIDALGO ENTERPRISES, INC. vs. GUILLERMO BALANDAN, ANSELMA ANILA and THE
COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. L-3422, June 13, 1952
PARTIES:
Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. - petitioner
Guillermo Balandan, Anselma Anila – private respondents, parents of Mario Balandan

FACTS: Hidalgo Enterprises was the owner of an ice plant, in whose premises were installed two tanks full
of water, nine feet deep, for cooling purposes of its engine. The factory was fenced but anyone could easily
enter the premises because the entrance gate was continually open and there was no guard assigned in the said
gate. Also, the tanks didn’t have any fence or top covers.

Private respondents’ son, Mario, a boy barely 8 years old, while playing with and in company of other
boys of his age entered the factory premises through the gate, to take a bath in one of said tanks; and while
thus bathing, Mario sank to the bottom of the tank, only to be fished out later, already a cadaver, having been
died of "asphyxia secondary to drowning

The lower court decided in the favor of the parents stating that that the petitioner is liable for
damages due to the fact that the petitioner maintained an attractive nuisance (the tanks), and neglected to
adopt the necessary precautions to avoid accidents to persons entering its premises, applying the doctrine of
attractive nuissance. The CA affirmed it.

ISSUE: Whether the subject water tanks are attractive nuisance

HELD: NO. The doctrine of attractive nuisance states that “One who maintains on his premises dangerous
instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract children in play, and who fails to exercise
ordinary care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender
years who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser in the premises. The principle reason
for the doctrine is that the condition or appliance in question although its danger is apparent to those of age,
is so enticing or alluring to children of tender years as to induce them to approach, get on or use it, and this
attractiveness is an implied invitation to such children

American jurisprudence shows us that the attractive nuisance doctrine generally is not applicable to
bodies of water, artificial as well as natural, in the absence of some unusual condition or artificial feature other
than the mere water and its location. In the case bar, the water tanks themselves do not fall under such
doctrine thus, the petitioners cannot be held liable for Mario’s death.

The reason why a swimming pool or pond or reservoir of water is not considered an attractive
nuisance was lucidly explained by the Indiana Appellate Court as follows:
Nature has created streams, lakes and pools which attract children. Lurking in their waters is
always the danger of drowning. Against this danger children are early instructed so that they are
sufficiently presumed to know the danger; and if the owner of private property creates an artificial
pool on his own property, merely duplicating the work of nature without adding any new danger, . . .
(he) is not liable because of having created an "attractive nuisance."

The appealed decision is reversed and the Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. is absolved from liability. No
costs.