Posted on 11/26/2015 12:38:19 PM PST by DogByte6RER
Scared man who sued over 'haunted house' loses in court
People who go to "haunted house" attractions to be scared shouldn't be surprised when they're scared, a state court of appeals has ruled.
A state appeals court has given precedent-setting status to a ruling that gave the scary mansions the same legal status as ski lodges, bumper cars and other commercial recreational facilities: They're not responsible for injuries caused by an "inherent risk" of the activity.
In this case, the court said, that risk was the terror Scott Griffin experienced after leaving what he thought was the exit gate of the Haunted Trail, an outdoor haunted house at Balboa Park in San Diego, one evening shortly before Halloween in 2011. As he walked away, laughing with a group of friends, he said, a man turned on a gas-powered chainsaw and pointed it at him.
Griffin said he backed away, asked the man to stop, then started running, with the saw-wielder in pursuit. Griffin fell and injured his wrist.
In a lawsuit against the trail's owner, Haunted Hotel Inc., Griffin argued that the company should not have trained its actors to chase visitors beyond the marked exit. He said he had feared he was in danger - real fear, he argued, as opposed to the "fun fear" he felt inside the gate.
Haunted Hotel said the fake exit was part of the trail, and the man with the saw - which had no chain - was the park's "Carrie effect." It's a reference to the last scene in the movie "Carrie," and many other horror flicks, in which the audience is given one final scare after being led to believe their horror is over.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.sfgate.com ...
Some people scare too easily and should naturally stay away from "scary" places and things ...
Whoever was this asshats lawyer should lose their license for filing this obviously frivolous lawsuit
There really is no righteous way to do a devilish thing. This could be a “let them go to hell on their own” decision. The events get a bad rap for going so over the top they physically injure people, people won’t visit any more. Problem solves itself.
What a Baby! the website warns you:”If you run, our people WILL CHASE YOU down like the chicken(sHts) you are”
I like that GIF. That rooster sure taught the little boy a lesson he won’t soon forget.
What if he visited the White House?
Holy Toledo.
I guess you never know what someone will file a lawsuit over.
This dude should stay far away from haunted houses.
The guy is a twat.
I have to side with the guy. Clearly, Haunted Houses should be equipped with Safe Spaces. And no one should be allowed to scare you without your consent.
Eeeeeek Means Eeeeek!!
There no ghosts, so he has no case.
almost as big a baby as this years crop of college snowflakes
I’ve heard some people get very scared in these places.
I heard of one place which had porta potties set up at the front, and told people going in that they should go to the bathroom before they enter.
I’ve heard people tell stories of smelling urine in the haunted house, from people who lost control they were so scared. Just saying, you better really enjoy being scared to death if you want to go in those places.
This wasn’t a fake ghost though. It was a chain saw, chainless but perhaps in the surprise not immediately apparently so. Guests are probably officially forbidden from being armed there, but we know how many slips occur between the cup and the lip. “Horror show over!” “Rev rev rev vroom vroom vroom chase chase chase” “Bang!” (not that I am EVER advocating that anyone PURPOSES this) might get them to rethink that.
I was so geeky when a teen that I went to a haunted house taking notes.
The next thing he should hear is “Here’s the bill”
Satisfaction guaranteed or double your horror back?
The event is better than not bad.
Well, DUH!
In business law, there is a concept called “unconscionable”, in which the situation is so inherently unfair and unjust, that a judge can set aside a “letter of the law” ruling in favor of an equitable and fair one.
A similar concept needs to be created in our civil law.
It would address individuals who are litigious, lawyers who engage in barratry, “litigation for the purpose of harassment or profit”, and such cases that the judge rules do not rise to the level of a civil lawsuit.
For example, someone buys a cup of hot coffee, then spills it on their own lap. A case by the injured party against the coffee seller is frivolous, and cannot to any extent be blamed on them, so should be dismissed outright.
In this case, a man went to a “haunted house” amusement area, whose very purpose is to cause harmless, artificial scares. He paid money, and he got what he paid for. That is it. From the very start the judge should have dismissed the case, with prejudice.
Almost as bad as being scared of spiders and snakes.
;)
It wasn’t the scare, it was the use of the scare in such a way as to cause an injury that occurred outside the premises, that was being brought up in the court.
This could well be the court’s way of saying fie on all the foolishness, meaning the haunted house and its patrons, and taking this legal dodge, throwing the issue literally to hell. Legal can have nothing to do with righteousness, but then neither does this ginned up scaring.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.