You Be The Judge: Did Six Flags Dodge Responsibility or Uphold Assumed Risks?

In this captivating case, we delve into the legal fight surrounding an incident at Six Flags St. Louis during their notorious “Fright Fest” event. Carly Munoz, a visitor to the park, sustained an injury while running from a costumed clown. The question at hand is whether Six Flags should be held liable for the incident or if Munoz assumed the risks inherent to attending the event. Let’s examine the facts, arguments, and the court’s decision in this intriguing case.

The Incident:

Carly Munoz attended Six Flags St. Louis’ highly anticipated “Fright Fest” event, which is known for its spooky ambiance and thrilling experiences. As part of the event, the park was filled with costumed characters whose aim was to scare and startle guests. During her visit, Munoz found herself running away from a clown who had been playfully chasing other guests. Unfortunately, she tripped on a curb and suffered an injury in the process.

Munoz’s Allegations:

Following the incident, Munoz filed a lawsuit against Six Flags, claiming that the park and its employee had failed to conduct actor activities in a safe manner. She alleged that the character intentionally scared a crowd of 15 to 20 people, and Six Flags did not intervene or provide adequate warnings to prevent potential stampedes. Munoz argued that Six Flags had a duty to maintain a safe environment and properly train their actors to ensure the safety of all guests.

Six Flags’ Defense:

In response, Six Flags sought summary judgment, asserting that Munoz had willingly assumed the risks associated with attending “Fright Fest.” The park argued that her injury resulted from the very acts and occurrences she knew about, expected, and personally witnessed while at the event. Six Flags maintained that the risk of being injured while running away in fear was inherent in Munoz’s decision to participate in the event.

Verdict Considerations:

Now it’s your turn to weigh in on this case. Should Six Flags be held responsible for Munoz’s injury, or did she willingly assume the risks involved in attending the “Fright Fest” event? Consider the arguments presented, the court’s ruling, and the principle of assumed risks when forming your verdict.

The Court’s Decision:

After careful deliberation, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Six Flags St. Louis. In a June 20 opinion, authored by Judge Sherri B. Sullivan, the court concluded that Munoz had voluntarily consented to attending the “Fright Fest” event, fully aware of the associated risks. They determined that Six Flags and the unidentified actor were not liable for Munoz’s injury because she knew and appreciated the potential dangers present at the park during the event. The court also upheld the lower court’s finding that there was no evidence that the park’s actor had chased Munoz, and even if they had, Munoz’s knowledge of and expectation for such actions negated liability.


This case serves as a reminder that when attending events or engaging in activities with inherent risks, individuals must be aware of the potential dangers and take personal responsibility for their choices. It highlights the importance of understanding the concept of assumed risks and how it can impact personal injury cases. As visitors, it is essential to exercise caution and make informed decisions about our participation, keeping in mind the potential hazards involved.

We hope this captivating case has shed light on the complexities of personal injury law and the significance of personal responsibility in such situations. If you have any questions or need legal assistance, our experienced attorneys are here to guide you through your personal injury journey.

Remember, safety and awareness are paramount, and understanding the legal implications can help protect your rights in personal injury cases. Stay informed and make informed choices to ensure your well-being.