HOJNOWSKI EX REL. HOJNOWSKI v. Vans Skate Park
901 A.2d 381, 2006 N.J. LEXIS 1080, 187 N.J. 323 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parent may bind a minor child to an agreement to arbitrate future tort claims, as it is a choice of forum; however, a parent may not bind a minor child to a pre-injury release of liability for a commercial recreational facility, as such a waiver is unenforceable and violates public policy.
Facts:
- In December 2002, Anastasia Hojnowski signed a 'RELEASE AND WAIVER OF LIABILITY AND JURY TRIAL' form on behalf of her twelve-year-old son, Andrew Hojnowski, to allow him to use a skate park operated by Vans, Inc.
- The document contained a provision waiving the right to claim money from Vans for injuries unless Vans intentionally caused harm or failed to correct unsafe equipment.
- The same document included a clause requiring any dispute with Vans to be resolved through arbitration with the American Arbitration Association, thereby waiving the right to a jury trial.
- In January 2003, while skateboarding at the Vans facility, Andrew Hojnowski suffered a fractured femur.
- The Hojnowskis alleged the injury occurred when an aggressive skateboarder, about whom they had previously complained to Vans, forced Andrew off a ramp.
Procedural Posture:
- Andrew Hojnowski and his parents filed a negligence suit against Vans, Inc. in a New Jersey trial court.
- Vans responded by filing a demand for commercial arbitration, citing the agreement signed by Andrew's mother.
- The Hojnowskis filed a motion in the trial court to enjoin arbitration and invalidate the pre-injury release.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Vans, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and ordered the case to arbitration, declining to rule on the validity of the liability waiver.
- The Hojnowskis (appellants) appealed to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the order to arbitrate but, in a split decision, the majority held that the pre-injury liability release was void as against public policy.
- Vans (appellant) appealed as of right to the Supreme Court of New Jersey on the liability release issue, and the Hojnowskis' (appellees) petition for certification on the arbitration issue was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a pre-injury waiver of liability, signed by a parent on behalf of a minor child, bar the child's future tort claims against a commercial recreational facility? 2. Does an agreement to arbitrate future disputes, signed by a parent on behalf of a minor child, bind the child to arbitrate claims against a commercial recreational facility?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Zazzali
1. No. A pre-injury release of a minor's prospective tort claims against a commercial recreational facility is unenforceable because it violates the public policy of protecting the best interests of the child. The court, under its parens patriae duty, found that such exculpatory agreements are disfavored as they discourage due care. This policy is consistent with rules requiring judicial approval for post-injury settlements of minors' claims, as both scenarios require protecting children from improvident compromises of their rights. Furthermore, commercial operators are in the best position to control risks and insure against them, and enforcing such waivers would remove a significant incentive to maintain safety for children. 2. Yes. A parent can bind a minor child to an agreement to arbitrate future disputes because arbitration is merely a choice of forum and does not extinguish the minor's substantive rights. This holding is supported by strong federal and state policies favoring arbitration. Unlike a liability waiver that forecloses a claim, an arbitration clause only specifies the tribunal where the claim will be heard, which is a permissible procedural limitation for a parent to agree to on behalf of a child.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Justice LaVecchia
1. Yes, provided the waiver is found to be reasonable by a court or arbitrator. The majority's outright invalidation of the liability waiver goes too far. While such waivers should be strictly construed, they are generally enforceable in private agreements that do not affect the public interest, and recreational activities do not implicate the public interest. Instead of a per se ban, courts should review such pre-injury waivers on a case-by-case basis, post-injury, to determine their reasonableness, similar to the judicial scrutiny applied to post-injury settlements under Rule 4:44. 2. Yes. The dissent concurs with the majority's holding that the agreement to arbitrate is valid and enforceable against the minor child.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical distinction in New Jersey law between a parent's ability to waive a minor's procedural versus substantive rights in a commercial context. By invalidating pre-injury liability waivers for minors at commercial facilities, the court strongly affirms the state's parens patriae role in protecting children's welfare over contractual freedom and business interests. However, by upholding arbitration clauses, the court preserves the strong public policy favoring arbitration as an alternative forum for dispute resolution. This dual holding provides clarity for commercial enterprises catering to children: they cannot escape liability for negligence through waivers but can mandate that disputes be resolved outside of the court system.
