|
Citing state and federal policy favoring arbitration, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a parent may agree to arbitration on a minor child’s behalf.
In Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park, No. A-17/45-05, 2006 WL 1976379 (N.J. July 17, 2006), twelve-year old Andrew Hojnowksi and his mother visited Vans Skate Park. Andrew could not enter the skate park until his mother signed a release that provided for arbitration and precluded Vans’ liability for certain injuries. Andrew’s mother signed the release on Andrew’s behalf.
Andrew broke his leg while skateboarding at the park, and his parents sued Vans on his behalf. Vans demanded arbitration pursuant to the release. The trial court ordered arbitration, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed the validity of the arbitration provision but held that Andrew’s mother lacked authority to limit Vans’ liability to Andrew.
First addressing the validity of the limitations on Vans’ liability, the Court held that “a parent’s execution of a pre-injury release of a minor’s future tort claims arising out of the use of a commercial recreational facility is unenforceable.” In reaching this holding, the Court reasoned that enforcement of the exculpatory provisions would violate the policy that the state must protect the best interests of minor children.
Conversely, the Court held that the arbitration provision was enforceable in light of state and federal policy favoring arbitration as a “speedy, inexpensive, expeditious” means of dispute resolution. Moreover, as the Court observed, an arbitration provision differs from a pre-injury release of liability because it “does not require a minor to forego any substantive rights.”
By upholding the arbitration provision while invalidating the limitations on liability, the Court recognized that these provisions are separate and distinct. Nevertheless, the Court nowhere explained why the arbitrator should not first decide the validity of the liability limitation. See Bland, ex rel. Coker v. Health Care and Ret. Corp. of Am., 927 So.2d 252, (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (finding “no reason why the arbitrator, in the first instance, cannot decide whether to enforce the remedial limitations”).
The lower court suggested that the validity of the liability limitations did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement because it was “a matter of public policy, not contract interpretation.” Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park, 868 A.2d 1087, 1095 (N.J. Super. Ct. 2005). However, the arbitration agreement was not limited to matters of contract interpretation. Rather, it applied to “any dispute between [Andrew] and Vans.”
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|