attractive nuisance doctrine n.

a legal doctrine which makes a person

negligent for leaving a piece of equipment or other condition on property whichwould be both attractive an
d dangerous to curious children. These have includedtractors, unguarded swimming pools, open pits, and
abandoned refrigerators.Liability could be placed on the people owning or controlling the premises evenw
hen the child was a trespasser who sneaked on the property. Basically thedoctrine was intended to make
people careful about what dangerous conditionsthey left untended. Some jurisdictions (including Californi
a) have abolished theattractive nuisance doctrine and replaced it with specific conditions (e.g. open pitan
d refrigerators) and would make property owners liable only by applying rules offoreseeable danger which
make negligence harder to prove.

List of Philippine legal doctrines

Here are some named legal doctrines used in Philippine law:

doctrine of attractive nuisance

doctrine of non-suability of the government - doctrine of

immunity from suit - doctrine of governmental immunity from

suit - doctrine of state immunity - doctrine of sovereign immunity
doctrine of primary jurisdiction
doctrine of renvoi
doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate entity
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
doctrine of "operative facts"
doctrine of last clear chance - doctrine of supervening

negligence - doctrine of discovered peril

doctrine of res judicata
doctrine of processual presumption
doctrine of statistical improbabilities
doctrine of unforeseen events
doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment
doctrine of non-interference
doctrine of pari delicto
doctrine of qualified political agency
doctrine of real and hypothecary nature of maritime law
doctrine of rational equivalence
Aguinaldo doctrine
doctrine of corporate negligence

doctrine of necessary implication

doctrine of ostensible agency
doctrine of apparent authority
doctrine of estoppel - doctrine of promissory estoppel
doctrine of corporate responsibility
doctrine of privileged communication
doctrine of lis pendens
DOCTRINE OF SECONDARY MEANING
doctrine of judicial stability
doctrine of legal entity of the separate personality of the
corporation
doctrine of self-help
doctrine of presumed identity
doctrine of separation of powers
doctrine of finality of judgment
doctrine of "imputed negligence"
doctrine of forum non conveniens
doctrine of presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duty
doctrine of implied municipal liability
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
doctrine of equitable recoupment
doctrine of laches - doctrine of stale demands
doctrine of absolute privilege
doctrine of ripeness for judicial review
doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere - doctrine of
stare decisis
doctrine of mortgagee in good faith
doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment
doctrine of "mechanical equivalents"
doctrine of supervening event
Cunanan doctrine

doctrine of bar by prior judgment - doctrine of conclusiveness

of judgment
doctrine of eo nomine
doctrine of equivalents
DOCTRINE OF "COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY" (EO 226, s. 1995)
doctrine of "Let the buyer beware" - doctrine of caveat emptor
doctrine of prior restraint
doctrine of quantum meruit
doctrine of implications
doctrine of "strained relations"
doctrine of "inverse condemnation"
doctrine of prejudicial question
doctrine of waiver
doctrine of in pari delicto
doctrine of the law of the case
doctrine of jus soli - doctrine of jus sanguinis
doctrine of parens patriae
doctrine of "compassionate justice"
doctrine of 'political question'
doctrine of corporate negligence
act of state doctrine
doctrine of executive privilege
doctrine of merger
doctrine of non-delegation
doctrine of co-equal or coordinate departments
doctrine of holdover
doctrine of absorption of common crimes (Hernandez doctrine)
doctrine of res gestae
doctrine of adherence to precedents
doctrine of ultra vires
doctrine of privity of contract
doctrine of relation back
doctrine of condonation

doctrine of limited liability

doctrine of interlocking confessions
doctrine of vicarious liability
doctrine of respondeat superior - doctrine of facit per alium
doctrine of public policy
doctrine of the third group
doctrine of malicious prosecution
doctrine of res perit domino
doctrine of fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant
doctrine of separability
doctrine of part performance
doctrine of deference and non-disturbance
doctrine of quantum meruit
doctrine of waiver of double jeopardy
doctrine of supremacy of law
doctrine of substantial compliance
doctrine of liberal construction of retirement laws
doctrine of lis pendens
doctrine of mortgagee in good faith
doctrine of presumptive grant
doctrine of protection against compulsory disclosures
doctrine of notice
doctrine of mutuality of remedy
doctrine of conclusiveness of the factual findings
doctrine of qualified political agency
doctrine of sole and exclusive competence of the labor tribunal
doctrine of loss of confidence
doctrine of disregarding the distinct personality of the
corporation - doctrine of alter ego
doctrine of agency by estoppel
doctrine of admissions
doctrine of reasonableness and intention
doctrine of proximate cause

doctrine of separate corporate personality

DOCTRINE OF LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OF PROCEDURE
doctrine of hierarchy of courts
doctrine of management prerogative
doctrine of successor-employee
doctrine of actio personalis moritur cum persona
doctrine of vagueness
doctrine of overbreadth
doctrine of lack of capacity to sue
doctrine of presumptive compensability
doctrine of separation of church and state
doctrine of part performance
doctrine of judicial supremacy
doctrine of completeness
doctrine of pro reo
doctrine of ratification
doctrine of fair comment
doctrine of election of remedies
doctrine of indefeasibility of a Torrens Title
doctrine of constructive trust
doctrine of subrogation
doctrine of implied trust
doctrine of incompatibility of public offices
doctrine of assumed risks
doctrine of comparative negligence

The doctrine of unforeseen circumstances is one which has found its way into the Arab worlds contract law
from French administrative law, where it is known as the doctrine of imprvision. Most Arab countries state
the doctrine as a codal rule . In Oman, which does not have a Civil Code, the courts similarly recognise the
principle as a rule of law.
The doctrine of unforeseen circumstances applies where exceptional circumstances which could not have
been foreseen have led to an obligation becoming unduly oppressive, threatening the defaulting party with
exorbitant loss, and in essence it permits the courts to step in and alter the terms of the parties contract with
a view to restoring its initial economic equilibrium.
Prerequisites for doctrine to be invoked
For the doctrine to be invoked, the event which renders an obligation oppressive must satisfy each of the
following four conditions:
(a) The event must be exceptional

An event is held to be exceptional when its occurrence is infrequent, irregular or rare. The event could be a
natural one, such as unseasonal climatic conditions, or it could be a man-made one, such as new
legislation, labour unrest, war, etc.
(b) The event must be unforeseeable
The question of whether an event is unforeseeable is to be measured objectively: would a normal person
have foreseen it if he had been in the same position as the contracting parties when they entered into the
contract? An approach taken by some writers is to consider whether the effects of the event in question,
rather than the event itself, could have been foreseen.
(c) The event must be general in nature
This means that it must affect not simply the contracting parties. It must affect society generally, or at least
all members of the relevant group in society.
(d) The event must occur during performance of the contract
This means that the event must take place after the contract has been entered into, and before performance
is completed. If the unforeseen event occurs at a time which only falls within the performance period of the
contract because one of the parties has delayed his performance, then such party will not be able to invoke
the doctrine.
If performance merely becomes more troublesome than expected, without going as far as becoming
oppressive, the doctrine will not apply. Whether or not performance has become oppressive is a matter of
fact, and is to be determined objectively, that is without regard to whether the obligor happens to have
substantial financial resources or otherwise.
Onus of proof and judicial intervention
The onus is on the party invoking the doctrine to prove not only that the four conditions above have been
met, but also the causal link between them and the fact that performance has become oppressive.
If a claimant is successful in discharging this onus, the courts will seek to identify the extent to which the loss
has become exorbitant. The party invoking the doctrine will still need to bear the normal and expected
losses attendant on his performance. When the margin of exorbitance has been ascertained the courts will
then decide how this is to be shared. In practice the courts tend to split that margin between the parties.
Counterpart rule in common law countries
In common law countries (such as England, India, Australia, USA) a similar function is performed by what
are often referred to as hardship clauses. The difference between these and the civilian doctrine of
unforeseen circumstances is that hardship clauses can only operate as contractual provisions, whereas
the doctrine of unforeseen circumstances has effect as legislation or legal principle.
Unforeseen circumstances distinct from force majeure
Although the doctrine of unforeseen circumstances may appear at first glance to be very similar to force
majeure there are fundamental differences, the principal one being that the courts are entitled to terminate a
contract under the doctrine of force majeure, whereas they have only the power to alter the contractual
obligations of the parties in the case of unforeseen circumstances. With regard to obtaining either of these
remedies, a party seeking relief as a result of force majeure must demonstrate that the affected contractual
obligation has become impossible to perform, as opposed to the lesser burden under the principle of
unforeseen circumstances to prove that the obligation has become unduly burdensome.
Where unforeseen circumstances might apply
The current downward trend in oil prices combined with increased costs of financing raise the prospect of
defaults in many arenas. The energy sector in the Middle East and North Africa is no exception. Around the
world, we have already begun to see parties attempting to invoke force majeure provisions as a result of the
adverse economic climate in order to escape their contractual obligations. The success of doing so has
been limited partly due to the high standard of proof required to rely on force majeure provisions. In the Arab
Civil Law jurisdictions, defaulting parties have available to them the alternative principle of unforeseen
circumstances, which requires a somewhat lesser standard of proof than that found with force