Strange Halloween Lawsuits
As one might expect, there are aspects of most holidays that might lend themselves to legal issues. Halloween is no exception. Here are some links to some Halloween related legal cases suits for your reading pleasure.
Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson Products, Inc.
Frank and Susan Ferlito attended a Halloween party dressed as Little Bo Peep and one of her sheep. Mr. Ferlito’s sheep costume was constructed by gluing cotton batting manufactured by Johnson & Johnson to long underwear. The costume covered Mr. Ferlito from head to ankles. At the Halloween party, Mr. Ferlito attempted to light a cigarette. While doing so, the cotton batting on one of his sleeves ignited and Mr. Ferlito suffered burns on approximately one-third of his body.
The Ferlitos sued Johnson & Johnson, arguing that consumers should be warned that cotton is flammable. The 6th Circuit court found in favor of Johnson & Johnson, as the Ferlitos both testified they knew cotton was flammable and their use of the cotton varied from the stated uses for the product on the product packaging.
What better way to get back at your neighbors than create a derogatory Halloween display? Several neighbors participated in a neighborhood petition to remove a motor home parked in the driveway of the Purtells’ home. The Purtells didn’t take this protest well, and retaliated by incorporating the name of the complaining neighbors along with a short description of the neighbor’s death into tombstones that were part of Purtells‘ Halloween display. The named neighbors complained to the police once they realized the inscription was about them.
The police attempted to get Mr. Purtell to remove the decorations. He refused, but did agree to cover the names. After Halloween, tensions flared again when the tape fell off. Officers were dispatched again and attempted to peacefully resolve the situation. During this encounter, the neighbors got involved, a shouting match ensued, and a neighbor chest butted Mr. Purtell. Officer Mason told Mr. Purtell he would be arrested for disorderly conduct if he did not agree to remove the tombstones. Mr. Purtell was placed in handcuffs for a short time. He relented and stated that he would rather remove the tombstones than be arrested.
The Purtells then sued Officer Mason based on purported violations of their First and Fourth Amendment rights. Officer Mason prevailed on both claims. The court determined that, although the tombstone inscriptions were protected speech and Mr. Purtell should not have been arrested, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity which protects government officials from civil suits when performing their duties in most circumstances.
Mays v. Gretna Athletic Boosters. Inc.
Both of these cases involve persons injured while participating in “haunted house”-type activities.
In Mays v. Gretna, Deborah Mays entered a haunted house, operated to raise money for athletic programs. Ms. Mays was frighted when someone jumped out in the dark. Ms. Mays ran face first into a cinderblock wall covered in fabric and required two surgeries to repair her broken nose.
In Durmon v. Billings, Gracie Durmon visited a corn maze. The maze included a section that was a “haunted” maze. It rained for several days before Mrs. Durmon’s visit to the maze and the field was muddy. While in the haunted section of the maze, Mrs. Durmon was frighted by a character wielding a chainsaw and attempted to turn and run in the mud. She fell and broke her leg.
In both cases, the courts found in favor of the defendants, finding that the plaintiffs are expected to be frightened when participating in activities of this type. Thus, defendants have no duty to guard against participants’ reactions to being frightened as a result.
Stay safe and healthy this Halloween.