Larry Dighera wrote:
I think the law to which I referred was written to prevent kids from
drowning in swimming pools in unfenced, unlocked yards. It seems to
establish some culpability for the homeowner who constructs an
attractive nuisance without protecting the public from the danger it
may cause.

Understood and agreed.
However, suppose you have a gate that is locked, but an 8 yr-old gets a
boost and scales your 6-ft fence. Is the homeowner partially culpable
because his fence wasn't climb-proof? Where do you draw the line?

In this case, it is unclear to me that the 14 year old is guilty of
trespassing. The airport and aircraft were unlocked, and I have heard
no mention of signs being posted.

Right, I wasn't suggesting he was trespassing ... but can you say a 14
yr-old doesn't know or understand that he is NOT authorized to get into
an airplane that doesn't belong to him, start it up and fly away with it
just because the ignition key happens to be in it? True, it was careless
to leave the key in it, but at the same time, does there have to be a
sign on the ramp saying "unauthorized use of aircraft constitutes theft"
for it to BE theft?

Again, just getting back to absolute basics ... who over the age of 4
*doesn't* realize that taking a car or airplane or motorcycle that
*doesn't belong to you* *without the owner's knowledge* IS stealing even
if the key happens to be accessible to you, regardless of whether or not
you intended to keep it, give it away, sell it, or return it at some
unspecified later time/date?