By Doyice Cotten
When Carter Justice was 7 years old, he fell off an inflatable obstacle course and hit his head on the floor in an indoor amusement park. Prior to his participation, his mother signed a parental waiver of liability which stated: (Justice v. Marvel, LLC, 2021)
In consideration of being allowed to enter into the play area and/or participate in any party and/or program at Pump It Up of Plymouth, MN, the undersigned, on his or her own behalf, and/or on behalf of the participant(s) identified below, acknowledges, appreciates and agrees to the following conditions:
I represent that I am the parent or legal guardian of the Participant(s) named below …
….
I, for myself and the participant(s) named below, hereby release … MARVEL, LLC, dba Pump It Up of Plymouth … from and against any and all claims, injuries, liabilities or damages arising out of or related to our participation in … the use of the play area and/or inflatable equipment. (Emphasis added.)
In addition, the parents entered into a written agreement with Marvel stating that the Suttons had incurred unreimbursed medical expenses as a result of Justice’s head injury and that Marvel agreed to pay $1,500 of those expenses. The agreement provided that, if no new medical complications arose within six months, the Suttons would “execute a full and complete release and discharge of any and all claims.” No such release was signed.
When Carter reached 18 years of age, he filed suit against Marvel, LLC alleging negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Marvel based on the waiver of liability signed by the mother.
Carter Justice appealed arguing that the exculpatory clause is invalid and unenforceable for five reasons.
1.a pre-injury exculpatory clause releasing claims arising from the use of inflatable amusement equipment is void as a matter of law pursuant to a statute that was enacted after Justice’s mother signed Marvel’s exculpatory clause.
2. a parent does not have authority to agree to a pre-injury exculpatory clause on behalf of a minor child and that any such agreement is not binding on the child after he becomes an adult.
3. the exculpatory clause is invalid and unenforceable because it is overly broad or arguably overbroad and in violation of public policy.
4. the post-injury agreement abrogated or modified the pre-injury exculpatory clause.
5. that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Marvel engaged in greater-than-ordinary negligence.
The court addressed each argument, but in a different order.
- Parental Authority
The court quoted the Troxel v. Granville, (2000) U. S. Supreme Court decision which said “A parent’s right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of his or her children is a protected fundamental right.”
It also discussed several Minnesota statutes which recognize by implication that a parent generally is authorized to enter into agreements with third parties on behalf of a minor child. After considerable discussion that it ruled that the parent does have authority to sign on behalf of the child.
- Inflatable Amusement Equipment Statute
The court ruled that the district court did not err by reasoning that section 184B.20 does not apply retroactively to Justice’s mother’s agreement to Marvel’s exculpatory clause.
3. Marvel’s Waiver
Plaintiff argued that the waiver is unenforceable on the grounds that it is overly broad and contrary to public policy. regarding public policy, the Minnesota court referred to the State Supreme Court two prong test for Public Policy: 1) disparity of bargaining power and 3) type of service – an essential public service. The court ruled neither applied and said the waiver did not violate public policy. Further, the court said the waiver did not go beyond ordinary negligence and was not overly broad.
- Whether action exceeded Ordinary Negligence
The court pointed out errors in the plaintiff’s case regarding claims of Gross Negligence and held the district court did not err.
- Post-Injury Agreement
Justice argued to the district court that this post-injury agreement abrogated the exculpatory clause on the ground that the parties “agreed to substitute a new contract” for the exculpatory clause. The district court rejected the argument, reasoning that the post-injury agreement does not abrogate or modify the exculpatory clause because it does not refer to the exculpatory clause and because it states that it is not “an admission of any fault or legal liability.”
The appellate court supported the district court interpretation of the agreement.
DECISION
The appellate court upheld the district court grant of Marvel’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of the waiver signed by Mrs. Justice. So the waiver signed by the mother did actually remove the ability of the minor to receive redress when he was of legal age.
Risk Management Take-away
Recreation and sport managers should gain more confidence in parental waivers of liability in some states. Courts in several states do enforce waivers signed parents or legal guardians of minors. Remember however, that most states will not enforce such waivers.
Photo Credit: Thanks to Stevan Sheets via Flickr.