Kirton v. Fields
997 So.2d 349 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A pre-injury release executed by a parent on behalf of a minor child is unenforceable in a tort action against a commercial enterprise because it violates public policy.
Facts:
- Bobby Jones was the primary residential parent for his fourteen-year-old son, Christopher Jones.
- Approximately one month prior to his death, Christopher attempted a particular jump at Thunder Cross Motor Sports Park on his all-terrain vehicle (ATV), resulting in a fractured rib and a mild concussion.
- On May 10, 2003, Bobby Jones took Christopher to ride his ATV at Thunder Cross Motor Sports Park, a commercial facility.
- To gain entry and allow Christopher to participate, Bobby Jones signed a release and waiver of liability on behalf of his son.
- While attempting the same jump as before, Christopher lost control of his ATV, was ejected, and the vehicle landed on top of him.
- Christopher got up and walked a short distance before collapsing and dying from his injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Jordan Fields, as personal representative of the estate of Christopher Jones, filed a wrongful death suit against the Kirtons and Dean Dyess in a Florida trial court.
- The Kirtons raised the pre-injury release signed by Christopher's father as an affirmative defense and moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Kirtons, finding the release barred the estate's claim.
- Fields, the appellant, appealed the decision to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's summary judgment, holding the release was unenforceable.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal then certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida for a final determination.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a pre-injury liability release signed by a parent on behalf of a minor child bar a subsequent tort claim by the minor's estate against a commercial enterprise?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Quince
No, a pre-injury liability release signed by a parent on behalf of a minor child does not bar a subsequent tort claim by the minor's estate against a commercial enterprise. Such releases are unenforceable as they violate public policy. The state, under its parens patriae authority, has a compelling interest in protecting minors that outweighs a parent's right to waive a child's potential tort claims. Enforcing these releases for commercial activities would remove the incentive for businesses to take reasonable precautions to ensure children's safety. Furthermore, it would unjustly shift the financial burden of a child's injury from the negligent commercial entity to the child's family and the public.
Concurring - Justice Anstead
Concurring with the majority. This holding is narrowly directed at commercial operators who negligently cause injury to a child. It correctly recognizes that public policy disfavors exculpatory contracts because they shift risk to the party least equipped to prevent injury and bear the loss. While adults can exercise caution and obtain insurance, children are less able to do so, making the state's interest in protecting them paramount, especially when commercial enterprises can insure against risk and incorporate those costs into their prices.
Concurring - Justice Pariente
Concurring with the majority. There is no common law basis for a parent to waive a child's substantive rights without court approval. It is critical to distinguish between a parent accepting the inherent risks of an activity, like ATV riding, and absolving an operator from liability for its own negligence, such as improper course design or failing to have safety personnel present. While the court's holding is limited to commercial activities, the reasoning against allowing a blanket release for negligence should apply with equal force to noncommercial and school-sponsored activities.
Dissenting - Justice Wells
Yes, the release should be enforceable. The majority is creating a new public policy that should be left to the Legislature, and it is fundamentally unfair to apply this new rule retroactively to the defendants. The distinction between 'commercial' and 'non-commercial' activities is vague and will lead to extensive litigation, a problem this Court criticized in Global Travel Marketing, Inc. v. Shea. By not legislating on this issue, the Legislature has implicitly chosen to respect the fundamental right of parents to make decisions for their children, and this ruling may prevent minors from participating in many activities as operators will be unwilling to assume the financial risk.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant public policy limitation on the enforceability of liability waivers in Florida, specifically protecting the legal rights of minors. By invalidating pre-injury releases for commercial activities, the court prioritizes the state's role as 'parens patriae' over both parental authority and freedom of contract. The ruling places the financial risk of negligent conduct on commercial enterprises, which are deemed better able to insure against and prevent harm. However, as the dissent notes, the court's undefined distinction between commercial and non-commercial activities creates a potential gray area that will likely be the subject of future litigation.
