Griffin v. The Haunted Hotel CA4/1
194 Cal. Rptr. 3d 830
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Griffin paid to attend The Haunted Trail, an outdoor haunted attraction whose core feature is high-impact scares, including actors with gas-powered chainsaws (chains removed) and a staged "Carrie" fake-exit that elicits a final chase.
- The event gave warnings (ticket, website, orientation tape) that it contains high-impact scares, that running causes injuries, and that actors will scare and may chase patrons.
- After believing he reached the exit and regrouping on an access road controlled by the attraction, Griffin was surprised by a chainsaw actor who started the saw, chased him, and caused Griffin to run and fall, injuring his wrist.
- Prior incidents: over 14 years ~250,000 patrons attended; in recent years 10–15 patrons fell during the chainsaw final scare (none reported injured before Griffin); event employed security, police, and EMTs.
- Griffin sued for negligence and assault; the trial court granted summary judgment for Haunted Hotel on primary assumption of risk grounds; Griffin appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the primary assumption of risk apply to The Haunted Trail? | Griffin conceded some scope but argued it shouldn't bar recovery because he was chased after he believed event ended. | Haunted Hotel: scary, startling, and chase risks are inherent; applying Nalwa and related law, no duty to eliminate those risks. | Yes — haunt's core purpose is to frighten; the risk of being scared, fleeing, and falling is inherent, so primary assumption of risk applies. |
| Was the final "Carrie" scare outside the attraction boundaries so as to fall outside inherent risks? | Griffin: the scare occurred outside the attraction; a bright-line boundary should limit operator conduct. | Haunted Hotel: the access road is part of the controlled attraction; boundaries are defined by operator. | No — undisputed evidence shows the access road was controlled by defendant and part of the attraction. |
| Did Haunted Hotel unreasonably increase the inherent risk (breach duty)? | Griffin: website and audio both discouraged running yet the attraction encouraged chasing, creating and failing to mitigate risk. | Haunted Hotel: warnings and rules do not create a legal duty; encouraging scares does not prove increased risk beyond the inherent nature. | No triable issue — evidence did not show conduct increased risk beyond what is inherent in the attraction. |
| Was defendant's conduct reckless or intentional such that primary assumption of risk does not bar recovery? | Griffin: prior falls and continuing practice of chasing patrons show conscious disregard and create triable issue of recklessness; pleaded punitive damages. | Haunted Hotel: low incidence of falls relative to attendance; no evidence of deliberate disregard or intent to injure. | No — evidence insufficient to show a high probability of injury or conduct "totally outside" ordinary activity; not reckless or intentional. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P., 55 Cal.4th 1148 (Supreme Court of California) (primary assumption of risk applied beyond sports to recreational activities; risk elimination that would alter activity is not required)
- Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal.4th 296 (Supreme Court of California) (primary assumption of risk; coparticipant liability only for intentional or recklessly extraordinary conduct)
- Avila v. Citrus Community College Dist., 38 Cal.4th 148 (Supreme Court of California) (duty analysis focuses on nature of activity and defendant’s role, not plaintiff’s subjective appreciation)
- Luna v. Vela, 169 Cal.App.4th 102 (California Court of Appeal) (discusses inherent risk as a question of law and distinguishes cases where triable issues on increased risk exist)
- Beninati v. Black Rock City, LLC, 175 Cal.App.4th 650 (California Court of Appeal) (applied primary assumption of risk at Burning Man; no evidence defendant increased inherent risk)
- Fazio v. Fairbanks Ranch Country Club, 233 Cal.App.4th 1053 (California Court of Appeal) (denied summary judgment where factual disputes on whether defendant increased risk existed)
- Cheong v. Antablin, 16 Cal.4th 1063 (Supreme Court of California) (summary judgment appropriate where no evidence of intentional or reckless injury)