The law imposes on owners and occupiers of land the duty not to expose persons to unreasonable risks of harm created' by conditions on the land. Prosser on Torts, *332 2d Ed., 119, § 30; 2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts 1453, § 27.5; Restatement, Torts 925, § 339, Comment on Clause (d). Many decisions upon facts similar to those stated in this petition have held that owners and occupiers of land have no duty to take affirmative action to protect persons whom they do not invite on the land from the hazards of a pond. The reasoning of these decisions, some of which are cited infra, is that the maintenance of a pond does not expose persons not invited on the land to an unreasonable risk of harm; hence the owner or occupier does not have a duty to protect persons—even small children—not invited on the land, from hazards that may exist from the presence of a pond of water.
The attractive nuisance doctrine does not apply to ponds or other water hazards.
McCall v. McCallie,
The facts of this petition do not show a duty of care owed by the defendants to the plaintiff’s decedent and therefore do not state a cause of action for negligence. The trial court did not err in sustaining the defendants’ general demurrers.
Judgment affirmed.
