Scary in a Suit: The Legal Technicalities Behind a Haunted House

The idea of going through a haunted house is fun enough, but what if your fight or flight instinct kicks in and triggers a sea of legal questions? What if, in running away from the screaming ghost, you fell and injured yourself? Or if, when the zombie lunges towards you, the fight instinct kicks in, and you physically defend yourself? Tort law is most likely to answer your questions.

To establish the basics, the relevant areas of tort law are the duty of care and negligence. Legally speaking, the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 states that occupiers of premises owe lawful visitors a duty of care. As such, haunted houses must keep visitors reasonably safe on their premises. More specifically, if an injury is the result of a slippery floor, unsafe stunts, or poorly maintained props/grounds, the owners expose themselves to negligence claims.

This is where ‘Beware’ signs come in. Legal warnings that alert visitors to dangers and sudden lights or movements they may encounter inside the house help reduce liability on the part of the owners. Additional requirements include risk assessments and safety measures as approved by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations of 1999. Moreover, haunted houses will typically have public liability insurance to cover losses from accidents and injuries.

If the fight instinct had kicked in, there would be a different legal response. Broadly speaking, haunted house employees would generally be expected to, and trained to, anticipate startled audience reactions and plan the appropriate response. Although reactions must be within reason, many haunted house operators, as a precaution, bar visitors from touching actors or props unless necessary or request the signing of a waiver accepting the risks associated with the house. Furthermore, the principle of volenti non fit injuria, the voluntary assumption of risk, also recognises that visitors of a scary environment accepted certain risks upon entering the premises.

However, if a lawsuit were to arise from an injury caused by a fear-based response, one would need to turn to how tort law addresses involuntary reactions. An involuntary reaction is not an automatic defence in tort law, although the court may consider the foreseeability and proportionality of the response. To avoid liability, the startled visitor would need to prove that they had been completely overpowered, which is a notably high threshold.

Conclusively, if the reaction was foreseeable and the haunted house operator failed to take the appropriate safety precautions, liability may shift to the operator.

Nevertheless, all to say is, stay attentive in the coming weeks, fright extends beyond the rise of zombies, ghosts, or vampires.