The answer may be: that depends. In a California case, a man sued a haunted attraction for an injury he suffered when he ran from an actor wielding a chainsaw. The court found that the attraction was not liable for the injury because fear and flight were inherent risks in such an attraction. In other words, the patron went there to be scared, and he was scared. A Louisiana court heard a similar case, with a similar result, holding that, “Patrons in a Halloween haunted house are expected to be surprised, startled and scared.” Visitors to haunted houses assume some risk due to the nature of the attraction, even if they don’t sign formal waivers.
However, the possibility remains that, if a haunted house fails to adhere to basic safety codes ‒ that is, if it does not maintain appropriate lighting and exits ‒ it could be held liable for its patrons’ injuries. Further, if the haunted attraction fails to warn patrons about certain risks that they might encounter (fog, strobe lights, uneven surfaces, etc.), then it could be sued for any harm suffered as a result. The key then is to ensure that visitors to haunted houses know what to expect without spoiling any surprises.
Kathleen Davies is a Staff Writer for GetLegal.com. She is a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School and has practiced law and taught legal writing and advocacy.