Court: Florida Second District Court of Appeal
Case: SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment LLC d/b/a Busch Gardens Tampa Bay v. Asmaa Abougamal, as Parent and Legal Guardian of A.M., a Minor
Case Nos.: 2D2025-0588 and 2D2025-1220
Opinion Filed: September 9, 2026
Citation: 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1870a
Lower Court: Circuit Court for Hillsborough County
Judge: Melissa M. Polo

When Does a Theme Park Guest Stop Being a Business Invitee?

A ticket to a theme park gives visitors permission to enter the park and enjoy areas intended for guests. But does that invitation extend to every location and every piece of equipment inside the park?

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal addressed that question in SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment LLC d/b/a Busch Gardens Tampa Bay v. Abougamal, a premises liability case involving a twelve-year-old boy who was seriously injured after climbing onto a professional circus trampoline inside a Busch Gardens theater.

The appellate court held that although the child entered Busch Gardens as a business invitee, his legal status changed when he went beyond the area and activity covered by that invitation. By climbing onto an elevated performance stage and then onto a professional trampoline for his own entertainment, the court concluded that he became, at most, an uninvited licensee.

That change in status was critical because Florida premises liability law imposes different duties on property owners depending on why a person is on the property and where that person is when an injury occurs.

The Second District ultimately reversed a judgment exceeding $5.3 million and directed the trial court to enter judgment in favor of Busch Gardens.

What Happened at Busch Gardens?

On September 23, 2022, twelve-year-old A.M. attended Busch Gardens Tampa Bay’s Howl-O-Scream event with his mother and another twelve-year-old friend.

The group arrived around 7 p.m.

At approximately midnight, A.M. and his friend entered the Stanleyville Theater without A.M.’s mother. According to A.M.’s testimony, they entered through a closed but unlocked door.

The theater’s lights were on, but no show was taking place. There were no employees inside, no actors were performing, and no music was playing.

A.M. acknowledged that it was clear to him that no show was underway.

Inside the theater, twenty-two steps led down through the seating area toward an elevated stage. At the back of the stage was a large sign for CIRQUE X-Scream, the show performed there during Howl-O-Scream.

A professional circus trampoline sat toward the rear of the elevated stage.

This was not an ordinary backyard trampoline. According to the evidence described by the court, it stood approximately four feet high, had no ladder or steps attached to it, and was designed for professional acrobats to bounce as high as thirty feet while performing stunts.

A.M. went down the theater steps, climbed onto the stage, walked to the trampoline, climbed on top of it, and began jumping.

At trial, he explained why:

“It looked fun.”

After jumping several times, A.M. attempted to get off the trampoline by first jumping high into the air.

He landed face-first on the ground below the stage.

A.M. Initially Said He Fell on the Theater Steps

After the accident, A.M. returned to his mother outside the theater.

He had suffered a cut on his chin and was experiencing abdominal pain. At first, however, he did not tell his mother that he had been jumping on the trampoline.

Instead, he said he had tripped on the theater steps.

His mother helped him obtain a Band-Aid, and Busch Gardens employees documented the incident. The family then left the park.

Because A.M.’s abdominal pain continued, his mother took him to a hospital. His chin required several stitches, and X-rays were taken before he was released.

A couple of days later, A.M. told his mother what had actually happened.

He explained that he had been injured while jumping from the trampoline and had been afraid to tell her the truth.

His abdominal pain persisted. His mother took him to another hospital, where doctors discovered that he had sustained serious and permanent internal injuries.

The Premises Liability Lawsuit

A.M.’s mother, Asmaa Abougamal, filed a premises liability action against Busch Gardens on March 10, 2023.

The complaint alleged that Busch Gardens negligently failed to exercise reasonable care for A.M.’s safety.

The case eventually proceeded to a four-day jury trial in November 2024.

One of the most important legal questions became surprisingly specific:

What was A.M.’s legal status at the exact location where he was injured?

That distinction matters considerably under Florida premises liability law.

A person can enter property as a business invitee but later move beyond the scope of the invitation.

We have discussed similar limitations on an invitee’s status in our Case Corner analysis of Sierra Orlando Properties, Ltd. v. Melissa Allen, where Florida’s Sixth District examined whether a hotel guest remained within the portion of property contemplated by the invitation.

Florida premises liability cases frequently turn not simply on whether someone was legally on the overall property, but on where the person went and what the person was doing when the injury occurred.

Business Invitees Receive Florida’s Highest Premises Liability Protection

A business invitee is generally someone who has been invited onto property for a purpose connected with the property owner’s business.

A paying theme park customer is a straightforward example.

Busch Gardens did not dispute that A.M. was a business invitee when he entered Howl-O-Scream.

The court also recognized that A.M. was permitted to enter the Stanleyville Theater even though no performance was taking place.

Florida property owners generally owe business invitees two important duties:

They must use reasonable care to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition, and they must warn invitees about concealed dangers that the property owner knows or should know about when those dangers are unknown to the invitee and cannot be discovered through the exercise of due care.

This is an important principle throughout Florida premises liability law. Our analysis of Gwen Ortega v. JW Marriott Investment, LLC discusses those duties and how they interact with Florida’s open-and-obvious-danger doctrine.

But those heightened duties do not necessarily follow a visitor everywhere on the property.

A Visitor’s Legal Status Can Change

The Second District emphasized an important rule:

A person’s status on someone else’s property can change while that person is still on the property.

The status that matters is the person’s status at the time of the injury.

A business invitee can lose invitee status by going beyond the area covered by the property owner’s express or implied invitation.

The court relied heavily on the Florida Supreme Court’s 1956 decision in Steinberg v. Irwin Operating Co.

In Steinberg, a woman entered a hotel to visit a registered guest. She initially entered as an implied invitee. But when the guest was not there, she and her friends began exploring other parts of the hotel for entertainment.

The Florida Supreme Court determined that when she went beyond the purpose and boundaries of the invitation for her own pleasure, her status changed.

The Second District saw A.M.’s situation in much the same way.

His Theme Park Ticket Did Not Include an Invitation to Use the Circus Trampoline

The appellate court found it undisputed that A.M. had permission to enter Busch Gardens.

He also had permission to enter the theater.

But that did not mean he had permission to go everywhere inside the theater.

The court concluded that A.M.’s invitation did not extend to climbing onto the elevated performance stage and using the professional circus trampoline.

The Second District stated:

“No reasonable person would believe that the ticket to Howl-O-Scream constituted an invitation onto the elevated performance stage and professional trampoline.”

That conclusion did not depend solely on whether a “Do Not Enter” sign had been placed directly beside the stage.

The court explained that property owners are not necessarily required to place warning signs in areas where members of the public are not reasonably expected to go.

That distinction is important. The absence of a specific warning sign does not automatically transform a restricted or nonpublic area into an area that visitors have been invited to use.

The Court Considered A.M.’s Own Testimony

A.M.’s testimony played an important role in the appellate court’s analysis.

During cross-examination, he acknowledged that he knew he should not have been on the stage.

The opinion states that he felt as though he was “sneaking” onto it.

During redirect examination, A.M. also agreed that he knew he should not have been on the trampoline.

His friend testified that he had told A.M. not to jump on it.

A.M.’s mother also testified that she knew visitors were not permitted to engage in horseplay, including jumping on a trampoline, and that she regularly advised her son to follow the park’s rules.

The appellate court concluded that this evidence could not simply be disregarded when determining A.M.’s status at the moment of injury.

Busch Gardens Had Posted General Howl-O-Scream Rules

Busch Gardens’ corporate representative testified that twenty-one illuminated warning signs were posted throughout the park during Howl-O-Scream.

Among other things, those signs instructed guests not to harm sets or props and prohibited horseplay.

Busch Gardens maintained that the trampoline was part of the CIRQUE X-Scream set or props and that jumping on it constituted horseplay.

A certified safety professional who testified for Busch Gardens agreed that the conduct violated those warnings.

The court also noted that Busch Gardens had no knowledge of any previous visitor climbing onto and jumping on the trampoline.

Although Busch Gardens employees monitored the theater while audiences were entering for performances because children might attempt to approach the stage during the excitement of a show, the evidence did not establish that guests were expected to climb onto the stage when no performance was occurring.

Why A.M.’s Legal Status Changed the Case

The distinction between a business invitee and an uninvited licensee was decisive.

Business invitees receive substantial protections under Florida premises liability law.

But the duties owed to an uninvited licensee or trespasser are much narrower.

According to the Second District, a property owner generally owes an uninvited licensee or trespasser a duty to avoid willful or wanton harm and, once the person’s presence is discovered, to warn that person about known dangers that would not be open to ordinary observation.

The court did not need to decide whether A.M. technically became an uninvited licensee or a trespasser.

For purposes of this case, the duty owed by Busch Gardens was the same under either classification.

The important determination was that he was no longer a business invitee when he was injured.

Busch Gardens Did Not Know He Was on the Trampoline

There was another significant problem with the negligence claim under the reduced duty.

The evidence did not establish that Busch Gardens employees knew A.M. was on the stage or trampoline while it was happening.

Busch Gardens did not learn that he had been injured while jumping on the trampoline until months later, after the lawsuit was filed.

At the time of the accident, A.M. had told his mother that he had fallen on the theater steps.

The Second District therefore concluded there was no evidence that Busch Gardens discovered A.M.’s presence on the stage or trampoline in time to warn him.

Nor was evidence presented establishing that Busch Gardens willfully or wantonly harmed him.

Without evidence supporting a breach of the duty actually owed to A.M. at the time of his injury, the appellate court concluded that Busch Gardens was entitled to a directed verdict.

The Trial Court Treated A.M. as a Business Invitee Throughout the Park

During trial, Busch Gardens repeatedly moved for a directed verdict.

It argued that A.M. entered the park as a business invitee but crossed the boundaries of that invitation when he climbed onto the stage and trampoline.

The trial court disagreed.

It determined that A.M. remained a business invitee and instructed the jury only on the duty owed to an invitee.

The jury was not asked to determine A.M.’s legal status at the time he was injured.

The Second District concluded that this was error.

The appellate court explained that if the trial court was unwilling to decide as a matter of law that A.M.’s status had changed, the question of his status should have been submitted to the jury under the appropriate instructions.

Instead, by ruling that A.M. remained a business invitee at all times, the trial court effectively resolved that issue in favor of the plaintiff even though the plaintiff had not moved for a directed verdict on the issue.

The Jury Awarded More Than $8 Million Before Comparative Fault

The jury found Busch Gardens negligent.

But it also found A.M. and his mother comparatively negligent.

The jury assigned fault as follows:

Busch Gardens: 65%

A.M.: 25%

Ms. Abougamal: 10%

The jury determined total damages of $8,154,350.75 before reductions for comparative negligence.

After the comparative-fault percentages were applied, the trial court entered a final judgment awarding $5,300,327.99 against Busch Gardens.

The court later awarded an additional $375,000 in attorney’s fees and costs based on an unaccepted proposal for settlement.

But those judgments did not survive appeal.

The Second District Reverses

The Second District held that A.M. exceeded the scope of Busch Gardens’ invitation when he climbed onto the stage and professional trampoline.

At that point, he was no longer a business invitee.

The court further concluded that there was no evidence that Busch Gardens violated the narrower duty owed to an uninvited licensee or trespasser.

As a result, Busch Gardens was entitled to a directed verdict.

The appellate court therefore:

Reversed the $5,300,327.99 negligence judgment;

Directed the trial court to enter judgment in favor of Busch Gardens; and

Reversed the $375,000 attorney’s-fee-and-cost judgment that depended on the negligence judgment.

This was not simply an order requiring another jury trial.

The Second District directed that judgment be entered for Busch Gardens.

Why This Decision Matters for Florida Premises Liability Cases

This case reinforces a principle that can sometimes be overlooked in premises liability litigation:

A person’s invitation onto a property has boundaries.

Someone who is legally invited onto a business’s property does not necessarily remain a business invitee regardless of where that person goes or what that person chooses to do.

Courts can examine whether the injured person entered an area that was intended for guests, whether the person’s activity was connected to the purpose of the invitation, whether the property owner could reasonably anticipate the person’s presence there, and whether the injured person knew the area or activity was outside the normal scope of permitted use.

That principle can apply far beyond amusement parks.

Hotels, restaurants, stores, apartment communities, entertainment venues, construction sites, office buildings, and other properties frequently contain areas that customers or visitors are not invited to enter.

Our previous Case Corner coverage has examined several different ways these boundaries affect Florida premises liability claims. In Open and Obvious Sidewalk Condition Bars Trip-and-Fall Claim, the condition of the property itself was central to the analysis. In Dama Holding LLC v. Juan Guelmes, the court confronted a landlord’s duties involving foreseeable criminal conduct. And in Gwen Ortega v. JW Marriott Investment, LLC, the court examined the duties owed to a lawful visitor confronted with an allegedly dangerous condition.

Together, these cases demonstrate why premises liability disputes are rarely resolved simply by asking, “Was this person allowed on the property?”

The more precise question may be:

Was the person invited to be in this particular location, doing this particular activity, when the injury occurred?

What About the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine?

At trial, A.M.’s mother argued that if her son’s legal status had changed when he climbed onto the stage and trampoline, the attractive nuisance doctrine could become relevant.

The Second District did not resolve the case under that doctrine.

The opinion notes that negligence based on attractive nuisance was not pleaded in the complaint and the jury was not instructed on an attractive nuisance theory.

Because the appellate court resolved the appeal through the scope-of-invitation and premises-status analysis, it did not use attractive nuisance as a basis to preserve the judgment.

That distinction is important. This opinion should not be read as a broad ruling that a trampoline can never constitute an attractive nuisance or that the doctrine could never apply in a different case. The court simply did not decide this case on that theory.

A Significant Lesson About Directed Verdicts

The opinion also offers a procedural lesson.

A directed verdict removes an issue from the jury when the evidence is legally insufficient to support a verdict for the opposing party.

Courts must be careful when denying such motions not to resolve a separate disputed issue in favor of a party that never requested that relief.

Here, according to the Second District, the trial court effectively determined as a matter of law that A.M. was a business invitee throughout his time at Busch Gardens.

The appellate court concluded that this determination could not stand.

If the evidence permits only one legally reasonable conclusion, a court may decide the issue as a matter of law. If competing reasonable conclusions can be drawn, the proper course ordinarily is to allow the jury to decide under correct instructions.

The Bigger Picture

This case does not eliminate the duty of amusement parks to protect their guests.

Florida law continues to require places of amusement where large crowds gather to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition consistent with the nature of their business.

Instead, SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment LLC v. Abougamal addresses the scope of that duty.

A guest’s legal status depends not simply on buying a ticket or entering the property lawfully. It may depend on whether the guest remains within the areas and activities reasonably included in that invitation.

For Busch Gardens, that distinction changed the outcome of a multimillion-dollar case.

For Florida businesses and injured visitors alike, the decision is another reminder that premises liability cases are highly dependent on specific facts: the location of the accident, the purpose of the visitor’s presence, what the property owner authorized or reasonably anticipated, what the injured person knew, and the precise duty owed at the moment the injury occurred.

Case Corner Takeaway

The Second District’s decision establishes that a theme park guest does not automatically retain business-invitee status everywhere inside the park.

A.M. lawfully entered Busch Gardens and lawfully entered the Stanleyville Theater. But according to the appellate court, his invitation did not extend to climbing onto an elevated circus performance stage and using a professional acrobatic trampoline for his own entertainment.

Because he crossed the boundaries of that invitation, the duty Busch Gardens owed him changed.

With no evidence that Busch Gardens knew he was on the trampoline in time to warn him, or that Busch Gardens engaged in willful or wanton conduct toward him, the negligence verdict could not stand.

The Second District reversed the negligence judgment and the related attorney’s-fee judgment and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Busch Gardens.

Today’s Insight

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

— Benjamin Franklin

Clear boundaries, reasonable safety measures, and an understanding of where an invitation begins and ends can become critically important long before an accident turns into litigation.