Allurement CASES

In English law, allurement describes features of land or objects on it that are especially attractive to children and likely to draw them into danger. It is not a separate cause of action. Rather, it informs whether an occupier should anticipate children coming near a hazard and take reasonable steps to protect them. The idea operates within the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (duties to lawful visitors) and the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 (limited duties to non-visitors, including trespassers).

Definition and principles

Under the 1957 Act, occupiers owe the “common duty of care” and must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults. Where something on the premises is an allurement—berries, machinery, boats, trampolines, scaffolding—extra precautions may be reasonable because children are foreseeably drawn to investigate or play. Under the 1984 Act, the presence of an allurement can make it foreseeable that a child will come into the vicinity of a danger, triggering the limited duty to take reasonable steps to avoid injury.

Allurement does not impose absolute safety obligations. The court balances the risk, the obviousness of the danger, the character of the place, the cost and practicality of precautions, and the role of parental supervision. It also distinguishes danger arising from the state of the premises from danger created by the child’s own activity.

Common examples

• Parks and public spaces: attractive but hazardous features (for example, poisonous plants in reach of young children, unfenced ponds, unsecured play equipment). Simple fencing, planting choices, and signage may be required where risks are not obvious to children.
• Construction and derelict areas: unsecured sites, ladders, pallets, or abandoned items (such as a derelict boat) that invite climbing or exploration. Reasonable steps include barriers, locks, and removal of tempting items.
• Commercial premises: displays or machinery visible and accessible from public areas that invite touching or climbing; measures include guarding, staff supervision, and layout changes.
• Residential settings: trampolines, unfenced pools, or structures adjacent to boundaries where neighbourhood children can easily access them.

Legal implications

• Visitors (1957 Act): the duty is to make visitors reasonably safe. With child visitors, an allurement may mean additional precautions are reasonable. Planning permission or general public benefit does not by itself excuse the occupier.
• Non-visitors (1984 Act): the duty arises only if the occupier knows (or has reasonable grounds to believe) there is a danger and that a person may come into its vicinity. An allurement can satisfy this by making child trespass likely. The response must still be reasonable and proportionate.
• Obvious natural features and activity risks: the law is cautious about imposing liability for obvious natural risks (such as open water used by competent teenagers) or where the danger stems from how the child uses a safe feature. Allurement strengthens foreseeability but does not convert obvious, everyday risks into actionable hazards.
• Parental supervision: the younger the child, the more the court expects supervision. However, occupiers cannot rely on supervision where an enticing hidden danger is left unaddressed.

Practical importance

For claimants, identify the specific feature that acted as an allurement, why it was attractive to children of the claimant’s age, and what simple precautions were available (fencing, relocating, signage, removing a tempting item). For defendants, show a proportionate system: risk assessments that consider children, records of inspection and maintenance, and targeted controls near likely desire lines. Photographs, site plans, and incident histories often decide cases.

See also: Occupiers’ liability; Children as visitors; Trespassers and the 1984 Act; Obvious risks; Open water; Nuisance; Negligence; Warnings and fencing.