By James Moss
In New Jersey, a release cannot be used to stop a lawsuit by a minor, but it can be used to require a minor to arbitrate a claim.
The decision in Johnson v. Sky Zone Indoor Trampoline Park in Springfield (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2021), created an interesting legal analysis. The agreement is not enforceable, but a clause within the agreement is enforceable. The release is not valid by law because a minor cannot contract and a parent cannot sign away a minor’s right to sue. However, in the contract that is not enforceable is a clause that is enforceable.
What is even of greater interest is the New Jersey Supreme, with identical legal facts, reached the same conclusion 15 years earlier.
In this instant case, the defendant required the plaintiff and his mother to sign a release before they could enter the trampoline center, so her son could attend a birthday party. The mother signed the electronic release and her son entered the trampoline center. A month later the minor came back and visited the defendant trampoline center and was injured using the center’s trampolines. No release appears to be signed the second time the injured minor attended the defendant trampoline park.
The appellate court reviewed each section of the agreement and separated the different sections of the agreement into different discussions. The court found part of the agreement outlined the risks of the trampoline park, but did not look at assumption of the risk as a defense. The court then stated that the appeal did not look at whether the exculpatory clause was enforceable, it was only reviewing the issues of the arbitration clause. Releases are not valid against the claims of a minor since the New Jersey Supreme Court decision in Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park, 187 N.J. 323, 346 (2006).
The Plaintiff’s Argument
The plaintiff argued that the agreement was not valid because the mother of the injured plaintiff signed by placing an X on the electronic release. An X was not a signature and it could or could not have been meant as such. However, the defendants countered that argument by showing they had collected the mother’s name and other contact information showing affirmatively that the mother knew she was doing more than just placing an X in a box.
The plaintiff next attacked the arbitration clause arguing it was ambiguous and unenforceable as a matter of law. The court rejected the arguments stating that arbitration clauses were “favored means of dispute resolution.” The issue the court found was whether there was a mutual assent to the terms of the agreement. “To reflect mutual assent to arbitrate, the terms of an arbitration provision must be “sufficiently clear to place a consumer on notice that he or she is waiving a constitutional or statutory right . . . .” That analysis was simply, whether the language of the arbitration clause put the plaintiff on notice that she was giving up her right to sue and have her dispute heard by a jury.
The court found the language of the arbitration clause clearly placed the mother of the plaintiff on notice that she was giving up her right to a jury trial. There was no special language, the court just looked at the language in the clause and found it was not as confusing as the plaintiff argued.
The plaintiff also argued the entire agreement was void because of Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park, id. In Hornowski the issue was a nearly identical set of facts. The parent of the minor child who was injured in a skate park sued. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the release was void; however, the arbitration clause in the release was valid. Id. The court in Hornowski specifically looked at the conflicting issue of voiding the document, but enforcing a clause within the document and held it was good law.
The plaintiff then attempted other arguments, that requiring a mother to sign a release with an arbitration clause right before a birthday party procedural and substantive unconscionable. The court did not buy that argument.
There was a similar case to Johnson v. Sky Zone Indoor Trampoline Park in Springfield (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2021) where the mother signed for her child to enter a trampoline park, Weed v. Sky NJ, LLC., 2018 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 410, 2018 WL 1004206. The difference between the cases was two releases were signed. The first release was signed by the injured minor’s mother. Several months later, the plaintiff went back, and that release was signed by an adult who was not the parent or guardian of the injured minor. The first release was thrown out because it did not contain language stating that the release was to be valid in the future, only for incidents that occurred at that visit. The second release was thrown out because it was not signed by the parent or legal guardian of the minor.
The New Jersey courts have carved an interesting safe harbor in contracts to protect the requirement to arbitrate issues.
Jim Moss specializes in the small business issues of outdoor recreation and adventure travel companies and manufacturers. His clients range from manufactures and importers to independent representatives and retailers as well as federal concessionaires and permittees. He also represents a variety of industry organizations and companies.
