The Lack of Regulations Will Make You Scream: The Rise of Haunted Houses

Haunted houses have existed in the United States for over a century, but despite their prominence, little legal precedent exists regarding their regulations. Given the growing commercialization of horror through movies and haunted houses, coupled with the increasing number of injuries linked to a controversial haunted house in Tennessee, the need for regulations has never been more urgent. Nevertheless, even outside of regulations, developments in tort and contract law show that contractual agreements to participate in a haunted house may not stand as enforceable contracts. Courts have consistently sided with haunted houses, claiming that patrons assume the risk when they consent to attend a haunted house, however, this does not acknowledge the lack of substantive precedent stemming from the prominence of binding, confidential arbitration clauses. This Note argues that the Consumer Product Safety Act should be expanded to include haunted houses, and unique regulations should be adopted to account for the typical contents of haunted houses. Additionally, this Note argues that courts should refrain from adhering to arbitration clauses in industries with high rates of injuries, such as amusement parks, and, in the absence of arbitration clauses, many haunted house contracts should be void. Under the traditional doctrine of assumption of risk, legally binding haunted house contracts should still be enforceable, preventing the flood of litigation that could arise without arbitration clauses.