Original commentary on cases, statutes, and operator practice. Written for working haunters, and other industry professionals.
This week’s case is a fairly standard premises liability case. A scare actor jumps (I’m guessing from a bungee rig) from an elevated platform, lands on a patron, and allegedly knocks her unconscious. Eighteen months later, the resulting federal lawsuit ends with a dismissal that almost certainly reflects a settlement, which is exactly the way most haunt injury cases end. Dickey v. Thirteenth Floor Entertainment Group, LLC, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Whether it was a questionable injury or a performer’s misjudgment, it is a good exemplar of how such cases often go.
As of May 1st, 2026, any haunted attraction in Pennsylvania that wants to use minors in performance roles must have a state-approved safety plan on file with the Department of Labor and Industry before it can even apply for a “Minor in Performance” permit. The requirement didn’t come from a spontaneous policy initiative. It came from an investigation, a scandal, and years of regulatory silence.
Pennsylvania appears to be the first state to take this step, and it may not be the last.
In 2010, a UK video game retailer called GameStation added a clause to its online checkout terms and conditions claiming ownership of customers’ immortal souls. The clause was buried in the agreement, but it came with an opt-out link. On April 1 of that year — April Fool’s Day — roughly 7,500 customers clicked through without noticing. Only about 12% found the opt-out and indeed opted out, thankfully saving their souls (just kidding).
Yes, I get it. We all want to share ideas, and that’s a good thing. But let’s face it. Sometimes we invest tons of thought and years of development into a design — a mask, a costume, a character look — and it’s legitimately not a good thing for a competitor to just copy it and sell it cheaper. There’s a legitimate reason to be able to share ideas, but on the whole it’s good to allow the creators of important IP to benefit from their creations. At least for a while.
For the first substantive blog post here, it would have been great to have some sort of landmark Supreme Court opinion dealing with haunted houses. Such was not to be. However, sometimes the more rudimentary case — the one that may affect haunted attraction owners and operators on a more daily basis — is the one that is most pertinent. This latest case from the Utah Supreme Court is just such a case.
Waivers and liability releases are critical tools for haunted attraction operators, but poorly drafted waivers can fail to protect you when you need them most. Courts scrutinize waivers carefully, and a waiver that sounds good may not hold up if it doesn’t meet specific legal requirements. Here are five common mistakes we see haunted attraction operators make when drafting or using waivers.
1. Being Too Vague About Risks
Many operators use generic language like “you assume all risks” or “you waive all liability.” Courts often find these overly broad statements unenforceable because they fail to specifically identify what risks participants are actually assuming. A better approach is to specifically describe the risks inherent in your attraction: physical contact from actors, simulated weapons, disorienting environments, sudden movements, loud noises, strobe lights, tight spaces, falls on uneven surfaces, or whatever applies to your experience. The more specific and vivid your description, the more likely the waiver will be enforceable. Participants need to understand exactly what they’re agreeing to.
Welcome to Haunt Law, a new legal information resource dedicated to the haunted attraction industry. Whether you operate haunted houses, escape rooms, or other immersive entertainment experiences, navigating the legal landscape can be challenging. Our mission is to make legal information accessible and understandable for haunt operators, escape room owners, attorneys, insurance professionals, and others working in this dynamic sector.
The haunted attraction industry has grown tremendously over the past two decades, but legal guidance specific to this field remains scattered and hard to find. Operators must grapple with liability concerns, waiver enforceability, safety regulations that vary by state, insurance requirements, and an ever-evolving body of case law. That’s where Haunt Law comes in.
This week’s case is a fairly standard premises liability case. A scare actor jumps (I’m guessing from a bungee rig) from an elevated platform, lands on a patron, and allegedly knocks her unconscious. Eighteen months later, the resulting federal lawsuit ends with a dismissal that almost certainly reflects a settlement, which is exactly the way most haunt injury cases end. Dickey v. Thirteenth Floor Entertainment Group, LLC, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Whether it was a questionable injury or a performer’s misjudgment, it is a good exemplar of how such cases often go.
In 2010, a UK video game retailer called GameStation added a clause to its online checkout terms and conditions claiming ownership of customers’ immortal souls. The clause was buried in the agreement, but it came with an opt-out link. On April 1 of that year — April Fool’s Day — roughly 7,500 customers clicked through without noticing. Only about 12% found the opt-out and indeed opted out, thankfully saving their souls (just kidding).
For the first substantive blog post here, it would have been great to have some sort of landmark Supreme Court opinion dealing with haunted houses. Such was not to be. However, sometimes the more rudimentary case — the one that may affect haunted attraction owners and operators on a more daily basis — is the one that is most pertinent. This latest case from the Utah Supreme Court is just such a case.
Waivers and liability releases are critical tools for haunted attraction operators, but poorly drafted waivers can fail to protect you when you need them most. Courts scrutinize waivers carefully, and a waiver that sounds good may not hold up if it doesn’t meet specific legal requirements. Here are five common mistakes we see haunted attraction operators make when drafting or using waivers.
1. Being Too Vague About Risks
Many operators use generic language like “you assume all risks” or “you waive all liability.” Courts often find these overly broad statements unenforceable because they fail to specifically identify what risks participants are actually assuming. A better approach is to specifically describe the risks inherent in your attraction: physical contact from actors, simulated weapons, disorienting environments, sudden movements, loud noises, strobe lights, tight spaces, falls on uneven surfaces, or whatever applies to your experience. The more specific and vivid your description, the more likely the waiver will be enforceable. Participants need to understand exactly what they’re agreeing to.