Griffin v. The Haunted Hotel CA4/1
2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 1036, 242 Cal.App.4th 490, 194 Cal. Rptr. 3d 830 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the primary assumption of risk doctrine, an operator of a recreational activity has no duty to eliminate or protect a participant against risks of injury that are inherent in the activity, such as being frightened, running, and falling at a haunted house attraction.
Facts:
- In October 2011, Scott Griffin purchased a ticket to 'The Haunted Trail,' an outdoor haunted house attraction operated by The Haunted Hotel, Inc.
- The attraction featured actors in costumes who would frighten patrons, sometimes chasing them with prop weapons, including gas-powered chainsaws with the chains removed.
- The Haunted Trail's website and an orientation audio tape informed patrons they might be chased and warned that running was a cause of minor injuries.
- After walking through the main trail, Griffin passed through an opening in a fence that he believed was the exit.
- While Griffin was standing with his friends on an access road past the fake exit, laughing about the experience, an actor with a chainsaw appeared for a final scare, known as the 'Carrie effect.'
- The actor started the chainsaw and advanced towards Griffin, who became frightened and ran.
- While being chased by the actor on the access road, which was controlled by The Haunted Hotel as part of the attraction, Griffin fell and injured his wrist.
Procedural Posture:
- Scott Griffin filed a first amended complaint against The Haunted Hotel, Inc. in trial court for negligence and assault.
- The trial court granted Griffin's request to allege punitive damages based on claims that employees were trained to chase patrons beyond the exit.
- The Haunted Hotel filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the primary assumption of risk doctrine barred Griffin's claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of The Haunted Hotel.
- Griffin, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the primary assumption of risk doctrine bar a negligence claim from a patron who was injured after being intentionally frightened and chased by an actor at a haunted house attraction, even after the patron subjectively believed the attraction had ended?
Opinions:
Majority - Nares, J.
Yes. The primary assumption of risk doctrine bars the negligence claim because the risk of being frightened, running, and falling is inherent in the fundamental nature of a haunted house attraction. The court reasoned that the doctrine applies to recreational activities involving inherent risks that cannot be eliminated without altering the activity's fundamental nature. The purpose of a haunted house is to scare patrons, and the risk of a patron reacting by running and falling is a direct and inherent consequence of that purpose. The patron's subjective belief that the attraction had ended is irrelevant, as the doctrine is based on an objective evaluation of the activity's risks, not the participant's state of mind. The final scare, or 'Carrie effect,' occurred within the boundaries of the attraction controlled by The Haunted Hotel and did not unreasonably increase the inherent risks of the activity. Furthermore, the defendant's conduct was not reckless, as the low number of prior falls relative to the total number of patrons did not establish a high probability of injury.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the primary assumption of risk doctrine to immersive, scare-based commercial attractions, extending it beyond traditional sports. It establishes that deceptive elements designed to enhance the fright, like a 'fake exit,' are considered part of the inherent risk that patrons assume. The court's focus on the objective nature of the activity, rather than the plaintiff's subjective fear or belief, creates a high bar for patrons injured in such attractions to succeed in a negligence lawsuit. This precedent provides significant legal protection for operators of theme parks and similar entertainment venues, as long as they do not unreasonably increase the inherent risks of the activity.
