In Gayles v. Sky Zone Trampoline Park, the Appellate Division addressed what was an issue of first impression for New Jersey Courts. Specifically, the Court determined whether an adult can validly sign a liability waiver for children not their own. The Court answered this question in the negative, absent legitimate apparent authority.
The facts of Gayles are relatively straightforward. A parent invited several of her son’s friends to an outing at Skyzone to celebrate his birthday. Gayles v. Sky Zone Trampoline Park, 2021 N.J. Super. LEXIS 61, at *1 (App. Div. May 12, 2021). For those unfamiliar with it, Skyzone is a recreation center where participants, often children, can use trampolines alone or with friends. Id. Upon arrival at Skyzone, the parent executed liability waivers on behalf of her own son and the other children accompanying her. Id. All of the children she signed for were minors. Id.
During their time at Skyzone, one of the children was injured while using a trampoline, giving rise to the lawsuit at issue. Id. at 4. On appeal, Skyzone argued that it was reasonable in its reliance on the parent’s apparent authority to sign its waivers on behalf of the children accompanying her. Id. at 5. In addition, Skyzone claimed that to hold otherwise would unreasonably burden its business in that it would be forced to obtain consent or powers of attorney from the parent or guardian of every child that uses its facilities, even in a party setting such as the one at issue. Id. at 5.
The Appellate Division rejected both of these arguments. Regarding Skyzone’s argument alleging the existence of apparent authority, the Court found that none existed, stating that, “[w]e can find no decision…in which someone who was not the child's parent…possessed the requisite actual or apparent authority to execute a waiver of rights regarding the minor's personal injury claims.” Id. at 10. Despite finding that there was a valid agency relationship between the parent and the minor children accompanying her, the Court’s rejected the existence of apparent authority as there was no evidence beyond Skyzone’s own intake procedures that the scope of the parent’s authority as agent extended to the execution of a liability waiver. Id. at 13. The Court noted the importance of such authority given the waiver’s execution would substantially limit the means by which any child could recover for injuries sustained at the facility. Id.
With regard to Skyzone’s argument that the imposition of a requirement to assure consent on behalf of such minors would unreasonably burden its business, the Court stated that it was unpersuasive as such a mandate would not be unduly burdensome. While not addressing this argument at length, the Court suggested possible methods of implementation could include an online consent form to be completed by each parent, or a form which could be emailed to each parent and given to their child for submission on arrival. Id. at 14.
The main takeaway from this decision is that facilities desiring protection from liability waivers must assure that the signatory has proper authority to execute the document on behalf of any minors accompanying him/her.