Haunted House "Ghost" Attack: Karate Expert Loses Lawsuit Against Theme Park
A Japanese karate expert who broke a haunted house worker's jaw with a kick in 2011 has lost his lawsuit against the amusement park. The man, who admitted to consuming alcohol before entering the haunted house at Toei Kyoto Studio Park, claimed the park should have warned visitors that actors were playing the ghosts and should have provided better protection for its staff.
The incident occurred in 2011 when the karate expert, who has not been publicly identified, was visiting the park with colleagues. He was startled when a park worker, dressed as a ghost, stepped forward to frighten him. In response, the man kicked the "ghost" in the face, claiming it was a reflexive action.
The injured worker subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking compensation. A settlement was reached in 2015, with the karate expert agreeing to pay 10 million yen (£52,534) in damages.
However, the karate expert later filed his own lawsuit against the theme park's managing company, arguing they were partially responsible for the incident and should contribute to the damages he had paid. He alleged the park was negligent for failing to train staff in how to handle visitor aggression and that he should not have been allowed to enter the attraction after consuming alcohol.
The Osaka High Court, however, dismissed the karate expert's claim last month, ruling that his kick was an overreaction and the park was not liable. The court stated that the man's action, which resulted in a broken jaw, "went beyond the scope of a reflexive action taken out of sheer fear."
The court further argued that the "ghosts" were the central attraction of the park and had never physically attacked anyone. Therefore, there was no reason for any visitor to use physical violence.
"While the staff portraying the ghosts aim to surprise customers, this is done within the understood principle that the haunted house is a safe experience," the court said. "Unlike in a movie or TV show, the 'ghosts' are not actually attacking customers, so there is no need for them to physically fight back."
The court concluded that it was "difficult to find any justifiable motive or logical rationale" for the karate expert's actions.
