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.
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.
I agree with you, but IIRC, in the McDonald's case, the award was only reduced by the appellate court. The judgement was not overturned.