Construction & Premises Liability: Haunted Coffin Ride Sends Guest in Flight of Terror |[OH CT APP]|

People have traveled far to witness the eerie history of the Wells Township general store and experience the haunted house effects the township adapts to the nineteenth century building each Halloween. Situated along the Ohio River, the general store had been “a desired storage location for the bodies of soldiers killed during the Civil War.”[1] The township and others have captured the building’s dark past in their haunted house experience. Guests daringly tour the mysterious house, braced for the township’s terrorizing ban of volunteer ghouls and goblins. On the second floor, lays a coffin large enough to fit three guests. Once the guests enter, volunteers seal the coffin and, feigningly, the guests’ fate. Then, the coffin descends to the first floor sending its passengers in a flight of terror. Upon reaching its destination, the coffin hits a catch that enables the coffin’s momentum to bring it upright where a volunteer then opens the lid and frees the guests. For one such guest, the lid prematurely opened and ejected her out of the coffin.

The guest brought a premises liability claim against the township, among others, for injuries suffered from the township’s failure to provide reasonably safe premises for its guests. Through an amusement attraction expert, the guest provided evidence that the township inadequately constructed the coffin ride which resulted in an unreasonably dangerous condition. Specifically, the expert alluded to the township’s use of an ungraded eye bolt to secure the coffin lid instead of a graded alternative. Because the lid release mechanism traveled across the eye bolt when securing the door, the expert said a graded eye bolt was necessary to sufficiently secure the lid. This design and construction failure, according to the guest’s expert, made it foreseeable that “the release mechanism could catch the eye bolt securing the door which would loosen it and cause the lid to open.”

The township claimed that it had not known nor should it have known that this particular eye bolt had loosened. It submitted evidence that inspections occurred before and after each ride and, therefore, it had accomplished its duty. In response to the guest’s expert evidence, the township contended that it only owed a duty to warn its guests of hazards it knew or should have known about on its premises. It argued, furthermore, that claims of negligent design and construction applied to product liability cases not premises liability and, thus, foreseeability was not an issue.

Based on the evidence presented, the township moved for summary judgment to dismiss the guest’s premises liability claim. The trial court denied the township’s motion. The township appealed.

In MILBERT v. WELLS TWP HAUNTED HOUSE, INC., 2016-Ohio-7108, 2016 WL 4594241 (Ohio Ct. App. Ottawa County Sept. 30, 2016), the Seventh District Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment. As the court noted, summary judgment is inappropriate when a genuine issue of material fact exists. Although this standard haunts first year law students studying civil procedure, it holds, as the court cited, that a genuine issue exists if evidence is sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to return for the non-moving party. Here, the appellate court found that an issue of whether the coffin ride’s ungraded eye bolt placed a foreseeable risk on guests of the haunted house. The township mischaracterized the extent to which its duty to provide a safe premise to its business guests extends. During instances in which a premises owner introduces a hazard constructed by a third party, the premises owner is only liable if it knows or has reason to know of the hazardous condition. However, when a premises owner constructs the hazard himself, then whether it will foreseeably harm a guest becomes the central question. The Seventh District concluded that there remained a genuine issue of whether the risk an ungraded eye bolt posed on guests was foreseeable.

[1] http://www.wellstownshiphauntedhouse.com/History.html

Best Practices:

1. Landowners owe a duty to warn guests (invitees), but also the general duty to avoid creating unreasonable risks to foreseeable plaintiffs – A landowner owes an invitee a duty to exercise ordinary care to protect her from risks of which the owner is actually aware and those risks of which the owner should be aware after reasonable inspection. However, under Ohio tort law, all people owe a duty not to create unreasonable risks that can foreseeably harm someone.
2. Knowledge of a defect is irrelevant when you created it – The Seventh District stated that regardless of what one knew or should have known of a defect, its creator is generally still liable for damages caused to foreseeable individuals.

– Christian H. Robertson II

All materials have been prepared for general information purposes only to permit you to learn more about construction law. The information presented is not legal advice, is not to be acted on as such, may not be current and is subject to change without notice.