Pennsylvania High Court Protects Minors’ Jury Rights in Sky Zone Case
Attorney Thomas J. Foley III is proud to have represented the Pennsylvania Association for Justice (formerly the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association) as amicus curiae before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the consolidated cases of Santiago v Philly Trampoline Park, LLC, t/a Sky Zone, No. 24 EAP 2023, and Schultz v. Sky Zone LLC, No. 25 EAP 2023 (Pa. Supreme Ct., September 25, 2025), in which minors’ rights in personal injury actions were protected and vindicated.
The Supreme Court summarized the cases and issues as follows: “Appellants, Philly Trampoline Park, LLC, and Sky Zone (collectively “Sky Zone”), operate trampoline parks. Patrons who wish to enter the parks must execute Sky Zone’s “Participation Agreement, Release and Assumption of the Risk” document (“Agreement”). [This agreement also contains a provision requiring binding private arbitration of any claims or disputes.] When the patron is a minor, a parent is required to execute the Agreement on the minor’s behalf. These appeals involve minors who were injured at Sky Zone facilities. In each case, only one parent signed the Agreement on behalf of their child. The Court is asked to resolve whether, under these circumstances, the Agreement is enforceable against the claims of the injured minor and the non-signing parent. We conclude that it is not and therefore affirm the orders of the Superior Court.”
The Supreme Court stated : “This Commonwealth favors the settlement of disputes by arbitration as a matter of public policy, as it offers a means to a swift and easy disposition of claims. … Despite this partiality, arbitration agreements are strictly construed and may not be extended by implication, either as to the persons subject thereto or the claims to be arbitrated…. The parties’ intent to arbitrate must be clear, for “[t]he terms of the agreement are not to be strained to discover it. They must be clear and unmistakable to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, for trial by jury cannot be taken away by implication, merely, in any case.”
The Supreme Court broadly held that “[p]arents, as natural guardians, do not have an inherent authority to “intermeddle' with the property of their minor children, which includes legal causes of action… ‘Intermeddling’ undoubtedly includes forfeiting the right to have claims adjudicated in a court of law where the prosecution of a minor’s claim is subject to the oversight and control of the court to ensure pursuit of the minor’s best interests. For these reasons, we find that parents are without authority to bind a minor child to an agreement to arbitrate. … To determine whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists, courts apply state law principles of contract law. A party seeking to compel arbitration must satisfy a two-part test: first, the party must prove that a valid arbitration agreement exists, and second, that the dispute falls within the scope of the agreement.”
The Supreme Court also held that, under the circumstances presented, the signing parents in each of the consolidated cases were also without authority to bind the other parent (or the child) to the agreement to arbitrate. The Court rejected the argument that the signing parents acted as the express, implied or apparent agents for the non-signing parents merely because they were married, and affirmed the holdings of the courts below that the evidence was insufficient to establish express, implied or apparent agency or authority on the part of the signing parents to bind the non-signing parents to the agreements. There is no “marital agency” arising from the marital relationship standing alone.
The decision has been widely noted in the legal press, including Law.com and The Legal Intelligencer, and it is expected to have not only statewide but national impact in jury cases involving minors’ rights, particularly those in which there is a pre-injury waiver of minors’ rights to compensation for injuries or an agreement to arbitrate those claims.
__________________________________
From Law.com and The Legal Intelligencer:
Parents do not have the authority to bind a minor child to an arbitration agreement, a split Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled.
"Parents, as natural guardians, do not have an inherent authority to 'intermeddle' with the property of their minor children, which includes legal causes of action," the high court said.
_______________________________________________
These were consolidated cases: Santiago v Philly Trampoline Park, LLC, t/a Sky Zone, No. 24 EAP 2023, and Schultz v. Sky Zone LLC, No. 25 EAP 2023 (Pa. Supreme Ct., September 25, 2025).
The Supreme Court summarized the cases and issues as follows: “Appellants, Philly Trampoline Park, LLC, and Sky Zone (collectively “Sky Zone”), operate trampoline parks. Patrons who wish to enter the parks must execute Sky Zone’s “Participation Agreement, Release and Assumption of the Risk” document (“Agreement”). [This agreement also contains provision requiring binding private arbitration of any claims or disputes.] When the patron is a minor, a parent is required to execute the Agreement on the minor’s behalf. These appeals involve minors who were injured at Sky Zone facilities. In each case, only one parent signed the Agreement on the behalf of their child. The Court is asked to resolve whether, under these circumstances, the Agreement is enforceable against the claims of the injured minor and the non-signing parent. We conclude that it is not and therefore affirm the orders of the Superior Court.”
The Supreme Court stated : “This Commonwealth favors the settlement of disputes by arbitration as a matter of public policy, as it offers a means to a swift and easy disposition of claims. … Despite this partiality, arbitration agreements are strictly construed and may not be extended by implication, either as to the persons subject thereto or the claims to be arbitrated…. The parties’ intent to arbitrate must be clear, for “[t]he terms of the agreement are not to be strained to discover it. They must be clear and unmistakable to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, for trial by jury cannot be taken away by implication, merely, in any case.”
The Supreme Court broadly held that “[p]arents, as natural guardians, do not have an inherent authority to “intermeddle' with the property of their minor children, which includes legal causes of action… ‘Intermeddling’ undoubtedly includes forfeiting the right to have claims adjudicated in a court of law where the prosecution of a minor’s claim is subject to the oversight and control of the court to ensure pursuit of the minor’s best interests. For these reasons, we find that parents are without authority to bind a minor child to an agreement to arbitrate. … To determine whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists, courts apply state law principles of contract law A party seeking to compel arbitration must satisfy a two-part test: first, the party must prove that a valid arbitration agreement exists, and second, that the dispute falls within the scope of the agreement.”
The Supreme Court also held that, under the circumstances presented, the signing parents in each of the consolidated cases were also without authority to bind the other parent (or the child) to the agreement to arbitrate. The Court rejected the argument that the signing parents acted as the express, implied or apparent agents for the non-signing parents merely because they were married, and affirmed the holdings of the courts below that the evidence was insufficient to establish express, implied or apparent agency or authority on the part of the signing parents to bind the non-signing parents to the agreements. There is no “marital agency” arising from the marital relationship standing alone.