Woodman v. Kera LLC
785 N.W.2d 1 (2010), 486 Mich. 228 (2010)
Rule of Law:
Under Michigan common law, a preinjury liability waiver signed by a parent on behalf of their minor child is unenforceable because a parent lacks the authority to contractually bind their child or waive the child's legal claims.
Facts:
- Five-year-old Trent Woodman attended a birthday party at Bounce Party, an indoor play area with inflatable equipment operated by Kera LLC.
- Before Trent was allowed to participate, his father, Jeffrey Woodman, signed a liability waiver form on Trent's behalf.
- The waiver purported to release Bounce Party and its agents from any liability for personal injury.
- During the party, Trent jumped from an inflatable slide and sustained a broken leg.
Procedural Posture:
- Trent Woodman, by his mother as next friend, sued Kera LLC in a Michigan trial court, alleging negligence.
- Kera LLC filed a motion for summary disposition, arguing the liability waiver signed by Trent's father barred the negligence claim.
- The plaintiff filed a cross-motion for summary disposition, arguing the waiver was invalid as a matter of law.
- The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of defendant Kera LLC on the negligence claim, finding the waiver was enforceable.
- The plaintiff appealed the trial court's ruling on the waiver to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the parental preinjury waiver was invalid and unenforceable under Michigan common law.
- Defendant Kera LLC sought and was granted leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court on the issue of the waiver's validity.
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 preinjury liability waiver signed by a parent on behalf of a minor child bar the child's subsequent negligence claim under Michigan common law?
Opinions:
Majority - Young, J.
No, the waiver does not bar the child's claim. A preinjury liability waiver signed by a parent on behalf of a minor child is unenforceable under Michigan's established common law. The court's reasoning is rooted in two bedrock principles: first, a minor lacks the capacity to contract, and their contracts are voidable for their protection; second, a parent or guardian cannot contractually bind their minor ward or waive the ward's property rights, which include a legal cause of action. Citing foundational cases like Power v. Harlow, the court affirmed that a right of action is a form of property that a parent cannot release, even for full consideration. The court concluded that altering this century-old rule is a significant public policy decision best left to the Legislature, which is better equipped to weigh the competing societal interests of protecting businesses versus preserving minors' rights.
Concurring - Hathaway, J.
No, the preinjury waiver does not bar the child's claim. The waiver is unenforceable under Michigan's long-standing common law. The public policy concerns that failing to enforce these waivers will undermine children's recreational activities are unfounded. Preinjury waivers have never been considered enforceable by Michigan courts, yet children continue to participate in sports and other activities. The common law rule correctly affords minors the same protections against having their claims waived before an injury as they have after an injury, when court approval is required to settle a claim.
Concurring - Markman, J.
Yes, the waiver should bar the child's claim. While the specific waiver in this case was ineffective due to poor drafting, a properly written preinjury waiver signed by a parent should be enforceable under Michigan common law. The majority errs by issuing an advisory opinion on a hypothetical contract and by incorrectly extending the rule against post-injury parental waivers to the pre-injury context. Enforcing these waivers respects parents' fundamental constitutional right to make decisions for their children, aligns with the freedom of contract, and supports the public policy of encouraging recreational activities. The majority's decision will inevitably lead to increased litigation and a reduction in available activities for children.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the common law rule in Michigan that parents cannot sign away a minor's right to sue for future negligence, establishing a clear precedent protecting minors' legal remedies. By deferring to the Legislature to make any changes, the court signals a cautious approach to judicially altering long-standing common law, especially in areas with complex public policy implications. The case creates a clear split with jurisdictions that enforce such waivers, prioritizing the protection of a minor's legal claims over freedom of contract and the economic interests of recreational providers. The sharply divided opinions highlight a deep jurisprudential debate on balancing parental rights against the state's protective interest in minors and the proper role of the judiciary in evolving the common law.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Woodman v. Kera LLC (2010)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"