Halloween is a time for costumes, candy, haunted houses, and neighborhood traditions. It is also an occasion for some surprisingly unusual legal disputes. Can a homeowner be sued over insulting Halloween decorations? When is a haunted house operator responsible for a visitor's injuries? Can throwing eggs at a house lead to criminal charges? And can a municipality restrict who is allowed to go trick-or-treating?
For law students, Halloween offers more than seasonal entertainment. It provides a useful lens through which to examine tort liability, criminal law, constitutional rights, and local ordinances.
In his article, “Case Law from the Crypt: The Law of Halloween,” published in the New York State Bar Association Journal in October 2011, Daniel B. Moar surveys cases involving Halloween-related disputes. His examples demonstrate an important principle: although the law may accommodate Halloween's unusual traditions, the holiday does not suspend ordinary legal obligations.
Too Old for Trick-or-Treating? Some Towns Say So.
Some communities have attempted to regulate Halloween by limiting the ages of trick-or-treaters or establishing specific hours for collecting candy.
Virginia features some of the most restrictive ordinances. In Chesapeake, kids over the age of 14 who trick-or-treat could be found guilty of a misdemeanor. Even children under 14 can be found guilty if trick or treating past p.m. Meanwhile, in nearby Portsmouth, a similar law is on the books to create an “age-appropriate atmosphere” in the city of about 100,000 residents, a police spokesman told The Washington Post.
Closer to home, in the smaller Illinois towns of Jacksonville and Belleville, those who are 13 and older and who solicit for candy also face legal restrictions.
Haunted Houses and Assumed Risk
Moar explores one of Halloween's most entertaining areas of tort law: injuries at haunted houses.
Unlike an ordinary business, a haunted house is designed to frighten its customers. Darkness, sudden noises, and startling encounters are part of the attraction. Courts have recognized that these expectations can affect the duty of care owed to visitors.
In Mays v. Gretna Athletic Boosters, Inc., a visitor was startled by a haunted-house performer and ran into a cinder-block wall, injuring her nose. The court rejected the argument that the darkness and startling exhibits necessarily made the attraction unreasonably dangerous. A later Michigan Appeals decision in Michael Davis v Jeffrey Lenhart (Per Curiam Opinion) (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) involving a man breaking his leg while trying to avoid flowing water funneling down a sloped exit path from a haunted corn maze, relied upon Mays’ reasoning, “The very nature of a Halloween haunted house is to frighten its patrons. In order to get the proper effect, haunted houses are dark . . . .” So too with a haunted corn maze.
Similarly, in Galan v. Covenant House New Orleans, a visitor was startled by a chainsaw-wielding performer dressed as Jason and fell, striking her head. The court emphasized that frightening patrons was the attraction's purpose.
These cases illustrate a familiar tort-law question: what risks should participants reasonably anticipate? However, haunted-house operators are not automatically immune from liability. Moar discusses other cases involving hazards such as misplaced benches, low-hanging barriers, and defective slides.
The distinction is between injuries resulting from expected scares and those caused by potentially unreasonable physical hazards. Assumption of risk does not provide a blanket exemption from negligence law.
When Halloween Mischief Becomes Criminal Conduct
Halloween pranks can also lead to criminal charges and civil liability. Moar discusses cases involving egg throwing, property damage, and group misconduct.
In In re Brittany L., a child who participated in egging a couple's house was convicted of felony vandalism and ordered to pay restitution. In Missouri v. Mast, a defendant involved in a group engaged in repeated unlawful activity was convicted of unlawful assembly, despite not being accused of personally committing every act.
These cases illustrate two important principles: conduct does not become lawful simply because it occurs on Halloween, and liability can extend beyond the person who directly causes damage, depending on the applicable law and the individual's participation.
Moar also examines disputes involving people injured by eggs thrown at passing vehicles or pedestrians. Come for the hilarious fact patterns, stay for the application of ordinary tort law.
Decorations, Free Speech, and the First Amendment
Some of the article's most unusual cases involve Halloween decorations intended to insult neighbors.
In Purtell v. Mason, the Seventh Circuit considered a dispute over tombstones placed on a homeowner's property. The tombstones named neighbors and included insulting messages. After police ordered the homeowner to remove the display, he sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights.
The Seventh Circuit recognized the validity of the First Amendment claim, concluding that the displays did not clearly qualify as unprotected “fighting words.” However, the court also held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because the relevant constitutional rights were not clearly established in the circumstances.
The case illustrates the tension between offensive expression and government authority to maintain public order. Speech does not automatically lose constitutional protection because it is insulting or intended to provoke an emotional response.
Moar's article is a useful starting point for exploring Halloween-related litigation, but it also offers a broader lesson: unusual facts can illuminate familiar legal principles.
Happy Halloween—and Happy Legal Researching!
Submitted by Manriquez,Elizabeth on October 29, 2026
This article appears in the categories: Law Library
