Beyond the Arc (2/5): What My Hot Air Balloon Ride Taught Me About Tort Law

"Beyond the Arc" chronicles my recent trip to the 2025 WNBA All-Star Weekend (July 18-19) in Indianapolis. This five-part series blends the excitement of All-Star Weekend and the celebration of women’s basketball with practical bar exam tips, advice, and strategies. Because if there’s one thing I’ve learned, it's that there are bar exam lessons everywhere. From fan experiences to game-day energy, each post offers quick takeaways to keep you motivated and focused on your bar prep journey.

---

This past weekend, I had the chance to take a tethered hot air balloon ride just a few feet off the ground during the 2025 WNBA All-Star Weekend at White River State Park in Indianapolis. Naturally, as someone who lives and breathes bar prep, I couldn’t help but think: Could this be a floating Torts bar exam essay waiting to happen?

Turns out, even a simple tethered ride offers great examples of bar-tested torts concepts.

Let’s break it down.

Negligence and Duty of Care

Even though the ride was tethered, the operator still owed me a duty of care. Whether you’re flying 30 feet or 3,000 feet, operators must exercise reasonable care to avoid causing injury to passengers or people nearby.

• Did the operator inspect the balloon and tether lines?

• Did they follow proper safety procedures?

• Were instructions provided to passengers?

On the bar exam, these facts would trigger a classic negligence analysis.

Common Carrier and Higher Duty of Care

Could a heightened standard of care apply? Some jurisdictions may treat hot air balloon operators as common carriers, especially when rides are commercial and open to the public.

If that's the case, common carriers owe the “highest duty of care”—not just reasonable care, but the utmost care consistent with the practical operation of the business.

On the bar exam, when you see a commercial ride open to the public, always consider whether a higher standard of care applies.

Not an “Abnormally Dangerous Activity”

Despite the risks, hot air ballooning typically shouldn't trigger strict liability on the bar exam.

Why? Because it’s an activity that can be conducted safely with reasonable care.

Strict liability is reserved for ultra-hazardous or abnormally dangerous activities (like blasting, cropdusting, and transporting toxic chemical) where no amount of reasonable care can eliminate the risk.

Assumption of Risk: Waivers and Consent

Before my ride, I had to sign a waiver and release of liability. This is classic assumption of risk territory. By signing the waiver, I acknowledged known risks and agreed to proceed anyway.

But even without a written waiver, assumption of risk can apply when a plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly engages in a risky activity.

On the bar exam, this is your go-to defense where the plaintiff consents to a known danger, either expressly (via waiver) or impliedly (by voluntarily participating).

Children and the “Adult Activity” Exception

Children are generally held to a child standard of care (of a reasonably careful child of similar age, experience, intelligence, and education).

But when a child engages in an adult activity (like driving a motor vehicle), bar examiners apply the adult reasonable person standard.

Could a hot air balloon ride qualify as an adult activity?

Probably. Hot air ballooning involves inherently dangerous conditions—height, unpredictable winds, and technical equipment. Courts often apply the adult standard to activities that involve heightened danger or technical complexity, like driving and operating a motorboat.

In that case, if a child were actually operating or piloting a balloon, the adult standard of care could be triggered.

Remember: Even a fun, relaxing hot air balloon ride can float you straight into bar exam law. No fancy casebook required.