The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed an order from the Law Division in Ocean County which dismissed a minor Plaintiff’s personal injury complaint and compelled his claims to arbitration. See Matullo v. Skyzone Trampoline Park, 472 N.J. Super. 220, 276 A.3d 178 (Super. Ct. App. Div. 2022). The lower court had granted a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint and compel arbitration filed by Defendant Skyzone Trampoline Park on the basis that the young Plaintiff defrauded Defendant by misrepresenting his age in a signed participation agreement to enter the park, purporting that he was an adult to be able to jump on their trampolines. The trial court held that Plaintiff misrepresented that he was nineteen years old, that the trampoline gym reasonably relied on his misrepresentation, and Plaintiff received and retained the benefits of their agreement, namely getting the opportunity to enter the park where he would inevitably injure himself.
On November 10, 2017, Plaintiff was a fifteen-year-old minor when he entered the Sky Zone Trampoline Park in Lakewood, New Jersey. Plaintiff was presented with a participant release and assumption of risk contract. One agreement term included an arbitration provision, stating that the patron was waiving their right to bring a lawsuit against the park and that any claims arising out of access to or use must be resolved using arbitration. Plaintiff signed the agreement improperly by first signing his name under the section asserting that he was a patron bringing a child with him and had the authority to execute it on their behalf. After signing that provision, he also signed a section towards the bottom, asserting that he was at least eighteen years old. In each section, he listed different dates of birth next to his signature, each being on either side of eighteen years old. Sky Zone employees did not catch this error on the agreement when processing the Plaintiff to jump at the facility that day.
Sky Zone was able to dismiss the suit at the trial level on the basis that Plaintiff had deceived them into allowing him to jump in the park by asserting he was eighteen. Plaintiff, on appeal, contended that the lower court did not fully consider case law holding that a minor can elect to avoid a contract, and the estoppel exception to that right should not apply to this arbitration provision. Under the law, a minor can generally disaffirm a contract entered prior to them reaching the age of majority, but an exception to this rule applies if the minor fraudulently misrepresented their age to another party, who reasonably relied on it, and allowed the minor to receive and retain the benefits of the agreement. See La Rosa v. Nichols, 92 N.J.L. 375, 379 (1918).
The Appellate Division focused on the Plaintiff’s two asserted dates of birth on the agreement and held that a reasonable person reviewing that agreement would not have relied on such conflicting representations, and there would be obvious questions about a nineteen-year-old being the legal guardian of a fifteen-year-old who both share the same name and birthday. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court, holding that the arbitration provision was unenforceable here while reinstating the complaint and taking the claims out of arbitration.
Written releases are a routine part of many activities people enjoy that carry risk. Do not feel rushed when reviewing the terms on your own before you sign, because sometimes you will only become aware of an arbitration provision or a term limiting your recovery when it’s read to you in court above your own, assenting, signature. On the other side, if you require patrons to sign these agreements at your business, please ensure that they are reviewed for proper execution prior to allowing a patron to receive the benefits of your business.