[LINK] faux-privacy ? (was: It's Queensland - (sorry to Qlders))

[Ash Nallawalla]

> From: Tom Koltai
> It is akin to leaving your front door key in a faux rock in the garden and
a
> curious 10 year old finding it... Then using the key to enter your
premises and
> steal all the brandy...

Somewhere in the US - I did it as case law as part of a BCom degree in India
or in NZ - there was a celebrated case of a judge ruling against the owner
of a car that was set alight by a kid who opened the shiny petrol filler
cap. He deemed it an "attractive nuisance", hence the owner was "asking for
it".

In Australia, the term comes up e.g.
http://www.ruralandgeneral.com.au/insurance-terms-a.php 
"Attractive Nuisance: Condition that can attract and injure children.
Occupants of land on which such a condition exists are liable for injuries
to children."

http://www.lexisnexis.com.au/aus/academic/lnconnect/masterpage/documents/LDL
CookCH04.pdf (1.8 MB PDF)
p 136 "In Australia, given the reform of occupier's liability, there is no
longer a need for the 'attractive nuisance' doctrine: see Australian Safeway
Stores v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479 mentioned in [6.16]. For further
discussion on judicial creativity see Chapter 6. Despite these limitations,
however, as explained by Branson and Finkelstein JJ in Telstra Corporation v
Treloar (2000) 102 FCR 595 at 602, above, the doctrine of precedent or stare
decisis retains its value as the cornerstone of the common law system."