Parents Cannot Waive Minors’ Right to Sue, Court Affirms
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court today issued a unanimous opinion affirming that parents do not have the legal authority to bind their minor children to arbitration agreements, effectively preserving a child’s right to sue for injuries in a court of law.
The decision in Santiago v. Philly Trampoline Park, LLC and Shultz v. Sky Zone, LLC solidifies a key protection for minors and is expected to have significant implications for businesses that require liability waivers from parents.
A Matter of Agency and Minors’ Rights
The cases originated from separate incidents at Sky Zone trampoline parks where two children, Isabella Santiago (age 3) and Rocco Shultz (age 5), were injured. In each instance, only one parent had signed a “Participation Agreement, Release and Assumption of the Risk” document on behalf of the child. The agreement included an arbitration provision requiring that any disputes be settled through arbitration rather than a lawsuit.
Following the injuries, both families filed lawsuits in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Sky Zone sought to compel arbitration, arguing that the parents who signed the agreements acted as agents for both the non-signing spouse and the minor child.
The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, addressing each in a detailed opinion written by Justice Donohue.
The Court held that marriage alone does not create an agency relationship, meaning one spouse cannot automatically sign away the legal rights of the other. The Court found no evidence that the non-signing parents had given their spouses the authority to act on their behalf.
However, the more significant portion of the ruling focused on the rights of the minor children. The Court emphasized that in Pennsylvania, minors have a “legal disability,” and the law has long-standing policies and safeguards to protect them. This includes a minor’s right to their own cause of action—a legal claim for damages—which the Court considers a form of property.
Safeguards Versus Arbitration
A key point of contention was whether the arbitration clause was simply a “forum selection clause,” as argued by Sky Zone, or if it fundamentally altered a minor’s rights. The Court agreed with the families, ruling that an agreement to arbitrate strips a minor of crucial legal protections.
Justice Donohue’s opinion highlighted the careful framework of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, which are designed to protect minors in litigation. These rules require:
- A guardian to be appointed to supervise and control the lawsuit on behalf of the minor.
- The court to maintain continuous oversight to ensure the litigation is in the child’s best interests.
- Judicial approval for any settlement or compromise of a minor’s claim.
By contrast, the Court found that arbitration lacks these carefully constructed safeguards. Submitting a minor’s claim to arbitration would remove judicial oversight and the protections afforded by the court system.
“Arbitration strips the minor of these protections, and a parent, as a natural guardian, has no authority to agree to a private adjudication of a minor child’s legal interest,” the opinion stated.
The Court’s decision rejects reasoning from other states, such as Ohio and New Jersey, that have upheld similar agreements by distinguishing between waiving a claim and selecting a forum. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that in this context, the two are inextricably linked.
Broader Implications
The ruling has been hailed as a major victory for consumer and personal injury advocates, who argue that businesses should not be able to avoid accountability by forcing injured minors into private, non-judicial forums.
For businesses like trampoline parks, amusement parks, and other recreational facilities that rely on liability waivers, the decision creates a significant hurdle. While these businesses can still require patrons to sign waivers, the ruling clarifies that the arbitration clauses within those waivers will not be enforceable against minor children and their non-signing parents.
Justice Brobson filed a concurring and dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Dougherty, although the specific points of disagreement were not immediately clear from the main opinion.
The ruling marks the end of a multi-year legal battle and reaffirms a core principle of Pennsylvania jurisprudence: the law’s paramount duty to protect its most vulnerable citizens.
READ :NCTC Intelligence Aids Arrest Of Cartel Baby Trafficking Ringleader ‘La Diabla’
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Connect with us: Follow the Tampa Free Press on Facebook and Twitter for breaking news and updates.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
