Attractive nuisance

Attractive nuisance is a "crossover" tort that combines the torts of negligence and tresspass to land, to protect young children. An attractive nuisance action is associated with premises liability of property owners, and involves an artificial  dangerous condition.

The rationale for the creation of the tort was that the presence of the dangerous condition amounted to an express invitation onto the land for young children to enter.

Elements
1) the property owner knows or has reason to know of a dangerous condition on their property which a child is likely to trespass upon (foreseeable)

2) the dangerous condition carries an unreasonable risk of bodily harm

3) the child, because of their age, does not discover/ does not appreciate the danger posed

4) the burden or cost of removing the dangerous condition is slight balanced against the risk posed by the dangerous condition

5) the property owner does not take reasonable care to eliminate the dangerous condition; AND

6)  a child suffers bodily harm as a result

There are many elements that you have to meet to support an attractive nuisance claim.
It is therefore UNLIKELY that a fact pattern on the multistate meets an attractive nuisance claim.

Analysis
Look for man-made structures on a private person's property that invite children to enter, like a swimming pool, trampoline, swing set, or tree house. Then, look for lack of a fence (too easy), or a poorly-maintained fence or unlocked gate such that access to the property is reasonably unrestricted.

Ponds and lakes are not artificial conditions, so attractive nuisance does not hold. However, drainage pits and wells are increasingly forming the basis of attractive nuisance actions.

Even a well-maintained and otherwise secure fence that is very short may create an
attractive nuisance action.

Landowners that live nearby schools and other places with a frequent number of small children have a greater burden.

Posting of warning signs, by itself, is not enough for property owners to eliminate the risk. However, this may bear on the issue of whether the child appreciated the risk.

The older the child, the more unlikely an attractive  nuisance doctrine holds (and vice-versa).  For example, a poorly-maintained fence around a private club swimming pool with large and prominent signs stating "Keep out: swimming pool" and "Shallow water: do not dive" would be analyzed differently for a 6-year old child versus a 12-year old child, for example.

Courts have frequently held that children who scale fences or gain access to otherwise secured areas appreciate the risk posed by the dangerous condition, and an attractive nuisance claim does not hold.