When parents sign liability waivers for a child to participate in sports, camps, or recreational programs, both sides often assume the agreement settles any future disputes. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided otherwise.

In September 2025, the Court issued decisions in Santiago v. Philly Trampoline Park, LLC and Shultz v. Sky Zone, LLC, holding that a parent’s signature on a release or arbitration agreement cannot waive a child’s right to bring a personal-injury claim in court.

This ruling now serves as guidance for how Pennsylvania businesses should draft and enforce participation agreements involving minors.

Background: The Case and Court Holding

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision arose from two separate cases involving injuries to children at trampoline parks operated by Sky Zone in Pennsylvania. In each case, a parent had signed a Release and Assumption of Risk form before entry. The documents included both a liability waiver and an arbitration clause.

After the accidents, the families filed personal injury claims in court. The park operators responded by asking the courts to compel arbitration, arguing that the parents’ signatures bound their children to those terms. Conflicting rulings in the lower courts eventually brought the issue before the state’s highest court.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that a parent lacks the legal authority to waive a minor’s constitutional right to a jury trial or to require arbitration. Because minors cannot contract on their own, a parent cannot surrender those rights through a private agreement unless a statute expressly allows it.

The Court further clarified that one spouse’s signature on a waiver or arbitration agreement cannot bind the other. Marriage, the justices explained, does not automatically create an agency relationship between spouses.

What the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Ruling Means for Businesses Operating in the State

The Supreme Court’s decision applies to all Pennsylvania courts. It affects any business that hosts minors, including recreation centers, sports facilities, and other similar establishments. A parent’s waiver no longer prevents a child from suing for injuries.

Limits on Parental Waivers

A business may still ask parents to acknowledge that an activity carries certain risks. However, that acknowledgment cannot prevent a minor from pursuing a child injury lawsuit. Even a waiver that includes arbitration or “hold harmless” language will not bar the child’s legal action.

A parent’s related claim, such as reimbursement for medical expenses, may still be subject to arbitration if the agreement states so, but the child’s claim remains separate and unaffected.

Effect on Common Business Models

This outcome affects many sectors that serve families. Organizations whose programs or services rely on parental consent forms must recognize that waivers signed by parents will not end potential litigation.

The types of organizations most likely to be affected include:

Recreation and Sports Programs

• Youth Leagues
• Gyms and Fitness Centers
• Amusement and Activity Centers

Education and Childcare Providers

• Schools and Daycare Centers
• Tutoring centers
• Scouting groups
• Community youth clubs

Other Service Providers

• Therapy Programs
• Event Organizers

Businesses must now shift from relying on waivers to building stronger internal safeguards and risk management practices.

Contracting and Drafting Best Practices After the Decision

The decision made by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania does not make waivers or contracts useless. Proper documentation still helps show that participants were informed and that the business took reasonable precautions.

The following best practices can help Pennsylvania businesses strengthen their agreements and demonstrate responsible operations in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Explain the Nature of the Activity and Its Risks

Participation forms should describe the activity and its foreseeable risks in straightforward language. This language does not remove the child’s right to sue, but it helps show that the business explained the risks in advance and acted with reasonable care. Courts often review this type of disclosure when deciding negligence cases or determining damages.

Define the Parents’ Role Separately

It is also useful to keep the parents’ commitments separate from the child’s participation terms. Parents can agree to basic rules such as supervising their children, following safety policies, or covering property damage. Those provisions remain valid even if the minor individual later pursues a child injury lawsuit.

Use Arbitration for Adult Claims

Businesses may still include arbitration clauses that apply to the parent’s own claims, such as costs or indemnity obligations. The key is to clearly state which provisions apply to adults and which do not apply to minors.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Ruling: Compliance, Risk Management, and Insurance Implications

This decision requires more careful planning by businesses that serve minors.

Review Liability Coverage

Owners should examine their insurance policies to confirm coverage for injuries involving minors. Some policies exclude these claims or cap the available coverage at lower amounts. Following this ruling, it may be advisable to consult with an insurance broker to review policy limits and exclusions and ensure the business is adequately protected.

Improve Training and Safety Measures

Employees who work directly with minors must be familiar with the facility’s safety policies and know how to respond in the event of an incident. Regular inspections, training updates, and written maintenance logs help show that the business takes reasonable precautions. Courts often view such records as evidence of due care if an injury claim is filed.

Keep Detailed Incident Records

When an accident occurs, accurate documentation can become essential later. Written reports, photographs, and witness information should be gathered and stored soon after the event. Having this information available months or even years later can help reconstruct what happened and support the business’s defense.

Broader Implications and Trend Analysis

Pennsylvania’s ruling follows a pattern already seen in several other jurisdictions. Courts in New Jersey, California, and Illinois have taken a similar position, ruling that parents cannot waive a child’s right to sue before an injury occurs. 

These decisions reflect a growing judicial reluctance to enforce pre-injury releases involving minors. For businesses operating in more than one state, this means that waiver and arbitration forms must be reviewed individually under each state’s law, rather than being treated as uniform documents.

Action Plan for Businesses

The Supreme Court’s decision requires an organized strategy and response. Pennsylvania businesses should evaluate their contracts, safety policies, and insurance coverage to ensure compliance and reduce their exposure to similar lawsuits.

The following steps are recommended for business owners who need to obtain waivers. 

Immediate Actions

1. Review Existing Waivers and Participation Forms: Consult counsel to identify provisions that no longer hold legal weight under Santiago and Shultz.
2. Update Insurance Coverage: Ensure that policies include defense and indemnity for claims involving minors.
3. Evaluate Safety Practices: Review maintenance, staff training, and emergency response procedures to confirm compliance with industry standards.
   

Long-Term Strategy

1. Clearly Communicate with Parents/Legal Guardians: Explain the risks of participation and the precautions that are in place. Transparency builds trust and might reduce claims.
2. Revisit Contracts Annually: Laws change, and annual reviews with your attorney help ensure agreements remain enforceable.
3. Preserve Records:  Keep copies of safety policies, inspection reports, and incident files to establish diligence in any future dispute.

Take Steps To Reduce Your Business’ Legal Exposure

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Santiago v. Philly Trampoline Park and Shultz v. Sky Zone redefines how liability works when minors are involved in organized activities. Parents may still sign consent forms and acknowledge risk, but they cannot waive a child’s right to seek recovery in court.

For Pennsylvania businesses, this ruling underscores the importance of prevention, documentation, and proper insurance. Waivers remain useful for communication and recordkeeping, but they are no longer a barrier to litigation.

At Very Law, we assist organizations in interpreting court decisions and adapting their practices to meet legal standards. Our team, led by Attorney Ryan Very, is dedicated to protecting our clients’ business interests.

If your organization hosts activities for minors or relies on parental waivers, our team can review your contracts, insurance, and safety policies to help reduce exposure under current Pennsylvania law. 

Contact us today to schedule a no-obligation strategy session

.