holding that parent may bind minor child to provision releasing volunteers and sponsors of non-profit sports activity from liability for negligence
How later courts described this case
- holding that parent may bind minor child to provision releasing volunteers and sponsors of non-profit sports activity from liability for negligence
- holding that “parents have the authority to bind their minor children to exculpatory agreements in favor of volunteers and sponsors of nonprofit sport activities where the cause of action sounds in negligence” and that such agreements “may not be disaffirmed by the child on whose behalf they were executed”
- holding that it was not appropriate to equate a pre-injury release with a post-injury release and that parents have the authority to bind their minor children to exculpatory agreements in favor of volunteers and sponsors of nonprofit sport activites where the cause of action sounds in negligence
- concluding that a parent may bind a minor child to a release of volunteers and sponsors of a nonprofit sports activity from liability for negligence because the threat of liability would strongly deter “many individuals from volunteering for nonprofit organizations”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Shea v. Global Travel Marketing, Inc., 870 So. 2d 20 (2003)
We also distinguish the instant case from Zivich, where the Ohio Supreme Court held that parents could sign an exculpatory agreement to allow their child to play soccer. 696 N.E.2d at 205.
The opinion
Cook, J.,
concurring. I join in the well-reasoned majority opinion. I write separately only to point out that today’s decision is firmly grounded in the public policy of the General Assembly, as evinced by the legislative enactments cited by the majority.