Assumption of Risk Has No Age Limit - An Early Haunt Liability Case from 1973

This 1973 Louisiana case represents one of the earliest reported decisions applying assumption-of-risk doctrine to a haunted attraction injury. The case is notable for establishing that even young patrons—not just adults—can be found to have assumed the risk of becoming frightened and injured as a result of that fright at a haunted house.

The court’s reasoning addressed an important concern: if assumption-of-risk doctrine prevented operators from facing liability for fright-induced injuries, could an operator require an adult to sign a waiver on behalf of a minor and thereby shield the operator from liability for injuries to the child? The court held that assumption of risk can apply to minor patrons, though with the caveat that parental consent is necessary and that the minor must have sufficient maturity to understand the basic nature of the activity.

This early case established a foundational principle that has remained consistent through modern case law: age alone does not eliminate assumption-of-risk protection for haunt operators. A parent can consent to a child’s participation in a haunt attraction, and both parent and child can be bound by the assumption of risk inherent to the experience. However, the operator must exercise appropriate judgment about which ages should be permitted in which attractions, and parental consent does not eliminate the operator’s duty to maintain safe premises or to refrain from reckless conduct. This 1973 decision remains a historic touchstone for understanding how assumption-of-risk doctrine developed in the context of haunted attractions.