Are haunted houses liable for personal injury?
Oddly enough, this area of law is still wholly unclear. Thats because, in simple terms, nobodys ever really tried.
October 31, 2013 at 07:27 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
To your left is a bloody skeleton. To your right is a gnome whose eyes light up. Straight ahead is darkness. You knew haunted houses are supposed to be scary, but this is a bit much. You want to leave, so you turn around to go the way you came. But, when you finally start to see the light, a vampire jumps into the path in front of you! You fall to the ground, clutching your chest. It's a heart attack.
So tell me: Is the haunted house liable for your medical bills?
Oddly enough, according to the Law Blog at the New York Times, this area of law is still wholly unclear. That's because, in simple terms, nobody's ever really tried.
“They all come of their own free will,” Stephen Hummel of America Haunts told the Law Blog. “And they want to be scared, so complaining wouldn't make sense.”
On its website, America Haunts estimates that there are more than 1,200 haunted attractions that charge admission during the Halloween season each year, while an additional more than 300 amusement facilities (theme parks and the like) that have Halloween-specific attractions. When added to the smaller, free or temporary haunted houses springing up across the country over the past week, it's almost shocking that none of them have ever been embroiled in some sort of major litigation.
According to insurance lawyer Randy J. Maniloff with White and Williams LLP in Philadelphia, who spoke with the Law Blog, the only cases he could find regarding haunted house litigation were all from the Louisiana Court of Appeal. And in each of those cases, the court ruled in favor of the haunted house.
That doesn't mean, however, that haunted houses are completely free of potential litigation. While scaring people is the name of the game, haunted houses (especially temporary ones) still need to adhere to safety codes and make sure all employees are following established laws while at the haunted house.
Want some more of the weird and strange? Check out some of the oddest recent lawsuits that InsideCounsel has found:
To your left is a bloody skeleton. To your right is a gnome whose eyes light up. Straight ahead is darkness. You knew haunted houses are supposed to be scary, but this is a bit much. You want to leave, so you turn around to go the way you came. But, when you finally start to see the light, a vampire jumps into the path in front of you! You fall to the ground, clutching your chest. It's a heart attack.
So tell me: Is the haunted house liable for your medical bills?
Oddly enough, according to the Law Blog at the
“They all come of their own free will,” Stephen Hummel of America Haunts told the Law Blog. “And they want to be scared, so complaining wouldn't make sense.”
On its website, America Haunts estimates that there are more than 1,200 haunted attractions that charge admission during the Halloween season each year, while an additional more than 300 amusement facilities (theme parks and the like) that have Halloween-specific attractions. When added to the smaller, free or temporary haunted houses springing up across the country over the past week, it's almost shocking that none of them have ever been embroiled in some sort of major litigation.
According to insurance lawyer Randy J. Maniloff with
That doesn't mean, however, that haunted houses are completely free of potential litigation. While scaring people is the name of the game, haunted houses (especially temporary ones) still need to adhere to safety codes and make sure all employees are following established laws while at the haunted house.
Want some more of the weird and strange? Check out some of the oddest recent lawsuits that InsideCounsel has found:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHunter Biden Sues Fox, Ex-Chief Legal Officer Over Mock Trial Series
Judge Sides With McDonald's In Attorney-Client Privilege Dispute With Former Executives
4 minute readMarriott's $52M Data Breach Settlement Points to Emerging Trend
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 5A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250