Insurance companies call pools "attractive nuisances". That's why you have to have a fence that children can't get through.
"For child trespassers the courts have developed the doctrine of attractive nuisance. An attractive nuisance is a man-made thing that may be attractive to children and might pose a danger to them. If an owner or occupant has an attractive nuisance like a swimming pool or a dangerous piece of machinery on the property and knows that children might come on to the property, they are required to keep the children away from the nuisance using fences, locked gates, or other security measures."
http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/injury-law/georgia_premises_liability_whoisresponsible.htm
"Recognizing that children are almost magically drawn to certain man-made hazards such as machinery and railroad turntables, courts have created a legal fiction known as the attractive nuisance doctrine in an effort to force an owner to protect children from their own curiosity. Under this theory, an owner is potentially liable for injuries caused to a [Trespassing Child] if the injuries were caused by a dangerous man-made instrumentality or machinery which naturally attracts young children. The central idea behind this doctrine is that the owner should anticipate that a child would come onto the property because of the interesting nature of the machinery, and the owner should take precautions such as erecting a fence or other barrier to keep children away from the harm.
Georgia courts have been very cautious about applying this doctrine and have limited its use by adopting a five-part test for an owner’s liability for a man-made condition. Under Georgia law, an owner of land is liable for physical harm caused by an artificial condition upon the land if:
(1) the place where the condition exists is one upon which the owner knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and
(2) the condition is one of which the owner knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury to such children, and
(3) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and
(4) the utility to the owner of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and
(5) the owner fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children."
http://www.premisesclaims.com/Law_Guide/law_guide_info.htm
http://www.speakerlawfirm.com/premises-liability.html
http://www.rivercenter.uga.edu/service/tools/easements/landowner_liability.html
(I am not associated with any private law firm whose URL is included in this post. I have posted them as a courtesy for the OP.)