Benn is the most frequently cited case in American "scare law." It serves as the primary defense for haunted house operators nationwide, often cited alongside the "Chainsaw Chase" scenarios. For any legal or operational analysis, it represents the boundary where patron responsibility begins and operator liability ends.
In short: You cannot sue a haunted house for being successfully haunted.
Benn v. Full Moon Productions, Inc., involving an injury sustained at "The Beast" haunted house in Kansas City, Missouri.
922 S.W.2d 783 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)
Case Overview
In this matter, the plaintiff (Benn) was visiting The Beast when they were startled by an actor. While attempting to move away from the "scare," the plaintiff ran and collided with a wall or fell, resulting in an injury. They sued the operator, Full Moon Productions, alleging that the facility was unsafe and that the actors’ conduct created an unreasonable risk of harm.
Legal Significance: Assumption of Risk
This case is a landmark in "scare industry" law because it applied the doctrine of Primary Assumption of Risk. The court's reasoning included the following points:
Inherent Risks: The court held that being frightened and reacting impulsively (such as running or ducking) is an inherent part of the haunted house experience.
Operator Duty: Because the patron paid to be scared, the operator did not have a duty to protect the patron from their own frightened reactions, provided the environment didn't have hidden, non-obvious dangers.
Outcome: The court ruled in favor of the haunted house, asserting that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by participating in an activity designed to induce fear.