Facts

On Oct. 15, 2011, plaintiff Scott Griffin, a Los Angeles mortgage broker in his 40s, joined a group of friends at a Halloween outdoor scare attraction called The Haunted Trail, in San Diego's Balboa Park. The attraction, owned and operated by defendant, The Haunted Hotel Inc., features costumed actors portraying ghouls, zombies and other Halloween-themed characters, armed with prop weapons, who are employed for the express purpose of terrifying the paying customers. The "trail" leads from one creepy temporary structure to another, each presenting a different horror scene. The actors often jump out from dark places, sometimes inches from the patrons, trying to optimize the scare.

On the night of plaintiff's visit, after he had made it though the trail, without incident, plaintiff walked through an opening in the screen-covered fence, joining his friends on a blocked-off park access road. He believed that after stepping outside the gate the attraction was over. However, defendant also controlled the access road during the event. As plaintiff regrouped with his friends on the access road, a chainsaw suddenly started up behind them and one of the actors approached. Plaintiff started to run, and the actor with the chainsaw gave chase. Plaintiff fell, and sustained a broken wrist and injured thumb.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff claimed that as he regrouped with his friends on the access road, a chainsaw suddenly started up behind them and one of the actors approached, menacingly. Plaintiff contended the actor invaded his space and despite plaintiff repeatedly telling the actor to back off and to stop, but the actor kept coming, so plaintiff ran. Plaintiff claimed the actor with the chainsaw gave chase and plaintiff fell, sustaining a broken wrist and injured thumb.

Plaintiff alleged that The Haunted Hotel was negligent in chasing patrons with chainsaws, in continuing the scare outside the gate where plaintiff had an expectation that the event was over, and in entrusting young actors, earning minimum wage, with the decision of whether a particular patron had become too frightened to continue scaring.

Plaintiff alleged that defendant's menacing of visitors with chainsaws amounted to assault, and that defendant's policy of chasing patrons who run, even though defendant acknowledged that running is the main cause of minor injuries at The Haunted Trail, was despicable conduct, supporting a finding of malice and giving rise to imposition of punitive damages. Plaintiff also alleged that defendant was negligent in hiring its youthful employees, provided inadequate training and continued to employ actors who had already proven "too wild" for the job.

Plaintiff's alleged causes of action for negligence, negligent hiring, training, retention and supervision, and assault, and included a claim for punitive damages.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant contended it provides many warnings that The Haunted Trail is not for the faint of heart, even promising that visitors who try to run, will be chased down "like the chickens that you are!" The last horror scene features multiple actors who menace patrons with live operating chainsaws, though the chains have been removed, rendering them harmless. Defendant contended that plaintiff believed the chainsaw was armed with the cutting chain. Plaintiff did not allege that the actor pushed him or even touched him, but said that he came dangerously close to him with a chainsaw.

Defendant contended that when plaintiff stepped out the "gate" he was still in an area controlled by defendant, and didn't know he was in for The Haunted Trail's signature scare, known as "The Carrie Effect." According to the owner of The Haunted Hotel, the message of "The Carrie Effect" is, "You might think it's over . . . but it's not over." The actor gave chase as defendant promised in the orientation audiotape.

The Haunted Hotel claimed that defendant owed plaintiff no duty of ordinary care, pursuant the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, and therefore all of plaintiff's claims were barred. Defendant argued pursuant to the California Supreme Court's recent decision in Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, LP (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1590, in which the court found that primary assumption of risk, a doctrine traditionally applied to sports and recreational activities, also applies to an amusement park bumper car ride. Defendant argued that, like the plaintiff in Nalwa, who was injured when bumped too hard by a bumper car, plaintiff in this case assumed the risk that his reaction to becoming too scared at a haunted attraction may prompt him to react in a manner that caused him injury.

Result

The court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendant. The court found that plaintiff was injured when he became frightened, ran and fell when confronted and chased by a costumed actor with a chainsaw at defendant's outdoor Halloween scare attraction, assumed the risk that he might react to fear in a manner that could cause him injury. In applying the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, the court ruled that defendant The Haunted Hotel owed plaintiff no duty of ordinary care and, therefore, the claim was barred in its entirety.

Other Information

FILING DATE: April 12, 2013.