This document discusses the law surrounding minors and releases from liability. It begins by stating that releases are considered contracts, but minors generally cannot sign contracts. Additionally, parents cannot typically sign away a minor's right to sue for injuries. The document then discusses various court cases that have examined issues like whether a minor can disaffirm a release signed as a minor after turning 18, whether parents can indemnify third parties for injuries to their minor children, and whether third parties like group leaders can sign releases on behalf of minors. It notes that most states do not allow parents to sign away a minor's right to sue, but a few (like California, Ohio, North Dakota, and Massachusetts) have allowed limited parental waivers

1. Minors and Releases
Releases are Contracts

2. Disclaimer:
All legal advice by it’s very nature is
subject to change and the laws of
each state. All legal advice
requires a review by your local
attorney.

3. Reality
• No matter what we learn here a judge
can change it.
• By the time we get done with the
conference a judge has probably
changed it.
• If you are really really bad, you are
going to lose no matter what

4. James H. Moss, J.D.
• OSU Environmental Interpretation
• Capital Law School, J.D.
• 500 Clients in Outdoor Recreation Field
– Individuals to Organizations
– Concessionaires & Permittees
– Manufactures to Retailers

5. Attorney for:
• O.A.R.S.
• International Mountain Guides
• Noah’s Ark
• C.A.M.P. USA & C.A.M.P. SpA (Italy)
• NRS
• American Mountain Guides Association
• G3
• Mountain Trip

6. Trials
• Whitewater
Rafting
Companies
• Snow Mobiles
• Ropes Course
• Canoe Liveries
• Climbing Gyms
• Land owners
• Ski Areas
• Mt. Everest
• Mountaineering

7. Adjunct
Instructor
Ski Area Operations Risk Management

8. Editor
Outdoor Recreation Law Review

9. Outdoor Recreation Law Review
• Legal News
• Editorials describing legal issues that are affecting
your operation and how they need to change
• Analysis of groups of cases that are affecting your
business
• Specific case analysis with the actual case
hyperlinked to the analysis
• Written in English
• Legal & Insurance Resources

10. UIAA Safety
Committee
• Union Internationale Des Associations
D’Alpinisme (International Mountaineering
and Climbing Federation)
• US Member of the UIAA Safety Committee

11. James H. Moss, J.D.
I am the only attorney/person to win an appeal to the Board of
Land Appeals (NPS/BLM)
I’ve participated in my OR lawsuits than all other attorneys
combined (except for ski area defense lawyers)
I’ve dealt with the only US litigation over Mt Everest
I’ve dealt with Ten Fatalities with no $$ paid
I’ve dealt with 3 Quadriplegics with no $$ paid
I have taught outdoor skills for universities
I have worked as a river, mountain, jungle, cycling and rock
climbing guide and I still guide

12. James H. Moss, J.D.
• I am a recovering Trial Attorney
• Citations & Writing are based on the above

13. Minors and Releases
Releases are Contracts

14. Common law: Default
Releases are against Void
If the Supremes have not ruled on the issue, releases are
void in that state
Minors cannot sign contracts
If the Supremes have not ruled on the issue releases
for signed minors are void in that state
Parents cannot sign contracts on behalf of
minors for post signing injuries
If the Supremes have not ruled on the issue signed by
parents for minors are void in that state

15. Historical judicial perspective
Minor cannot contract
Unless for necessities
Modified in several states by statute
If minor signs a contract, the contract is voidable by
the minor
(? Can a minor void what he cannot do?)
If minor turns 18 and does not disaffirm contact is
enforceable against minor

16. Jones v. Dressel, 623 P. 2d 370, 1981 Colo.
LEXIS 571, (Colo. 1981)
Plaintiff signed contract at age 17
Airplane crashed when he was 18
Sued when he was 19

17. Jones v. Dressel
• CO Supreme Court Held
– Minor failed to disaffirm
• Timeliness argument
• Failure to Disaffirm is a Ratification of the
Contract

18. Jones v. Dressel
Thus, since Jones ratified the contract, the
factual issue of whether his suit for personal
injuries was filed within a reasonable time after
attaining his majority and constituted
disaffirmance of the contract, is not relevant.

19. Issue of Timeliness of Disaffirmance
• Scoles, et. al., v. Franzen, 1991 Minn. App.
LEXIS 932
– Time is issue for Jury to decide

20. Scoles, et. al., v. Franzen
Where a contract, voidable by the infant, is
fully executed, as here, the infant must
disaffirm the same within a reasonable time
after reaching his majority or not at all.

21. Scoles, et. al., v. Franzen
"What is a reasonable time [within which to
disaffirm] will depend on the circumstances of
each particular case, and may be either for the
court or for the jury to determine."

22. Del Santo, Jr., v. Bristol County
Stadium, Inc., 273 F.2d 605; 1960 U.S.
App. LEXIS 5667
What if the minor lies about his age on the
release stating he is over the age of 18?

23. Del Santo, Jr., v. Bristol County
Stadium, Inc
• It does not matter
• A minor cannot contract

24. Sharon v. City of Newton, 2002 Mass. Lexis
384 (Mass. 2002)
However……
We will discuss this case later

25. Indemnification by Parent

26. INDEMNIFICATION BY PARENTS
FOR A CHILD’S INJURIES
Unanimously this has been rejected
by the courts

27. Utah
Hawkins, v. Peart, dba Navajo Trails, 2001 UT
94; 37 P.3d 1062; 433 Utah Adv. Rep. 19;
2001 Utah LEXIS 177 (UT 2001)

28. Hawkins, v. Peart, dba Navajo Trails
Such an agreement creates an unacceptable
conflict of interest between a parent and a
minor….
In short, an indemnification from negligence
that specifically makes a parent the ultimate
source of compensation would likely result in
inadequate compensation for the minor or
family discord.

29. Hawkins, v. Peart, dba Navajo Trails
…the indemnity agreement at issue is
inconsistent with a parent’s duty to a child.
Specifically, where a parent has a duty to
protect the best interests of a child, an
agreement to insure a third party against any
consequences for that third party’s negligent
behavior toward the child can only serve to
undermine the parent’s fundamental
obligations to the child

30. Seems to be a quasi balance test
Right to control child
Duty to child to protect child

31. New Jersey
Fitzgerald v. Newark Morning Ledger Co., 267
A.2d 557, 111 N.J. Super. 104 (1970)

32. Fitzgerald v. Newark Morning Ledger
Co
A parent, as natural guardian, owes his child a
duty of protection and guidance, and there is at
least a moral duty to see that a child's property
rights are fully protected.

33. Fitzgerald v. Newark Morning
Ledger Co
Therefore, defendant induced the father to enter into a
contract in which his personal interest came, or might
come, into conflict with his duty to his son. It is clearly
void as against public policy because it is an
agreement, the object or necessary tendency of which
is to place a person owing a duty to a third person, in a
position where he is under obligations inconsistent with
such duties. The agreement placed the father's
personal interest in a position antagonistic to his duty
toward the infant. A true conflict arose after the alleged
injury to the minor.

34. Tennessee
Childress v. Madison County, 777 S.W.2d 1
(TN App. 1989)

35. Childress v. Madison County
Indemnification agreements executed by a
parent or guardian in favor of tort feasors,
actual or potential, committing torts against an
infant or incompetent, are invalid as they place
the interests of the child or incompetent
against those of the parent or guardian.

36. Childress v. Madison County
Were the rule otherwise, it would circumvent
the rule [releases signed by parents as void]
regarding exculpatory clauses and the policy of
affording protection in the law to the rights of
those who are unable effectively to protect
those rights themselves.

37. Other Decisions against
Indemnification
Doyle v. Bowdoin College, 403 A.2d 1206 (Me.
1979)
Keeney v. Mystic Valley Hunt, 2003 Conn. Super.
LEXIS 3130, 2003 WL 22792318, at *3 (Conn.
Super. Nov. 13, 2003) (holding that parental
indemnity agreements create “precisely the type
of scenario that the parental immunity doctrine is
designed to prevent”)

38. Other Decisions against
Indemnification
Valdimer v. Mt. Vernon Hebrew Camps, Inc., 9
N.Y.2d 21, 172 N.E.2d 283, 284-86, 210 N.Y.S.2d
520 (N.Y. 1961) (where public policy would render
a settlement of an infant’s claims unenforceable,
similar public policy interests rendered parental
indemnity contract unenforceable)

39. Third Party Indemnification

40. Third Party Indemnification
Many times the parent will not have signed a
release and the leader of the group will be asked to
sign one on behalf of the child
Waste of paper, time and money.

41. West Virginia
Johnson, v. New River Scenic Whitewater Tours,
Inc, 313 F. Supp. 2d 621; 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
6166
White water rafting case where church leader
signed for parent on release and child was
injured. Defendant sued on the release and the
indemnification

42. Johnson, v. New River Scenic Whitewater
Tours
• WV Releases have generally been thrown out
the door
• Indemnification next step
• Missing parent signature, then group leader
signs release

43. Johnson, v. New River Scenic Whitewater
Tours
If a parent were able to waive liability on behalf of a minor,
the responsibility for paying for any harm suffered by the
minor (in particular, medical expenses) would necessarily be
borne by the parent, who is obligated to care for her child.
Similarly, a parent who indemnifies a third party shifts the
responsibility for paying for the financial consequences of
harm that befalls the minor as the result of that third party’s
illegal conduct. In both situations, then, the result is
identical: a tortfeasor who fails to comply with a safety
statute is able to shift his financial responsibility for his
tortious conduct to the parent of the minor victim.

44. Johnson, v. New River Scenic Whitewater
Tours
…allowing a parent to indemnify a third party for its
tortious conduct towards the parent’s minor child
would result in a serious affront to the doctrine of
parental immunity.

45. Indemnification*
• As a Guarantor the UCC/Statue of Frauds
requires a writing
• Indemnification to be effective must be
written like an insurance contract
• Indemnification still won’t beat many family
protection statutes.
*Indemnification issues applies to adults as well as minors

46. Decisions that based on the
language may support
Parental Indemnification of
Minor’s claims
• Rice, Et Als, vs. American Skiing Company, Et
Als, 2000 Me. Super. LEXIS 90

47. Parental Rights over Minors

48. Parents rights with regard to minors
Mixed bag
Right to control religion
Right to control medical care, including right to
allow to die
Right to control education and diet

49. However
In most states there is no right to sign away a
minor’s right to sue with a pre-injury release

50. Supreme Court decisions
Troxel, Et Vir v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57; 120 S.
Ct. 2054; 147 L. Ed. 2d 49; 2000 U.S. LEXIS
3767
Kirk Cobain’s kids
Courtney Love is the plaintiff in this case.

51. Troxel, Et Vir v. Granville
…the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process
clause protected the fundamental right of
parents to make decisions concerning the
care, custody, and control of their children
…there was a traditional presumption that fit
parents acted in the best interests of their
children

52. Troxel, Et Vir v. Granville
…according to the Washington Supreme
Court, the Constitution permits a State to
interfere with the right of parents to rear their
children only to prevent harm or potential harm
to a child.

53. Troxel, Et Vir v. Granville
…there is a constitutional dimension to the
right of parents to direct the upbringing of their
children. “It is cardinal with us that the
custody, care and nurture of the child reside
first in the parents, whose primary function and
freedom include preparation for obligations the
state can neither supply nor hinder.”

54. Troxel, Et Vir v. Granville
Accordingly, so long as a parent adequately
cares for his or her children ( i.e., is fit), there
will normally be no reason for the State to
inject itself into the private realm of the family
to further question the ability of that parent to
make the best decisions concerning the
rearing of that parent’s children.

55. General Rule / Common Law
A Parent or Guardian cannot sign away a
minor’s right to sue with a pre-injury release

56. Parents Cannot Waiver Minor’s Right
to Recover for Injuries
Fedor v. Mauwehu Council, Boy Scouts of Am., 21 Conn.
Supp. 38, 143 A.2d 466, 467-68 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1958)
Wagenblast v. Odessa School Dist., 110 Wn.2d 845; 758 P.2d
968; 1988 Wash. LEXIS 86; 85 A.L.R.4th 331 (WA 1988)
Scott v. Pacific West Mt. Resort, 834 P.2d 6, 119 Wn.2d 484
(Wash.1992)
Munoz v. II Jaz Inc., 863 S.W.2d 207, (Tex. App. 1993)
Meyer v. Naperville Manner, Inc., 262 Ill. App. 3d 141, 634
N.E.2d 411, 414-15, 199 Ill. Dec. 572 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994)
Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park, 2005 N.J. Super. LEXIS 79
(NJ 2005)

57. Parents right to sign away a minor’s right
to sue
California: Hohe v. San Diego unified sch. Dist., 224
Cal.App.3d 1559, 274 Cal.Rptr. 647 (1990)
Ohio: Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 696 N.E.2d 201, 82
Ohio St.3d 367 (1998)
North Dakota: McPhail v. Bismarck Park District, 2003 ND
4; 655 N.W.2d 411; 2003 N.D. LEXIS 3
Massachusetts: Sharon v. City of Newton, 437 Mass. 99; 769
N.E.2d 738; 2002 Mass. LEXIS 384
Colorado: C.R.S. §§13-22-107. Legislative declaration -
definitions - children - waiver by parent of prospective
negligence claims

58. California
Hohe v. San Diego unified sch. Dist., 224
Cal.App.3d 1559, 274 Cal.Rptr. 647 (1990)
City of Santa Barbara v. The Superior Court of
Santa Barbara County, 41 Cal. 4th 747; 161
P.3d 1095; 62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 527; 2007 Cal.
LEXIS 7603 (CA 2007)
Lashley v. East County Gymnastics et al, 2001
Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1729

59. Ohio
Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 696 N.E. 2d
201 (Ohio 1998)

60. Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc.
…the right of a parent to raise his or her child
is a natural right subject to the protections of
due process. Additionally, parents have a
fundamental liberty interest in the care,
custody, and management of their offspring.
Further, the existence of a fundamental,
privacy-oriented right of personal choice in
family matters has been recognized under the
Due Process Clause by the United States
Supreme Court.

61. Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc.
that many decisions made by parents "fall within
the penumbra of parental authority, e.g., the
school that the child will attend, the religion that
the child will practice, the medical care that the
child will receive, and the manner in which the
child will be disciplined." He found it notable that
the law empowers a parent to consent to medical
procedures for a minor child (R.C. 2317.54[C]),
gives a parent the general authority to decide to
decline medical treatment for the child, and
destroys the child's cause of action for battery
when consent is given.

62. Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc.
"A parent who dishonestly or maliciously signs
a preinjury release in deliberate derogation of
his child's best interests also seems unlikely.
Presumably parents sign future releases to
enable their children to participate in activities
that the parents and children believe will be fun
or educational. Common sense suggests that
while a parent might misjudge or act carelessly
in signing a release, he would have no reason
to sign with malice aforethought.

63. Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc.
Having upheld the release agreement against Bryan's
claims, we find it also valid as to Mr. and Mrs. Zivich's
claims for loss of consortium.
Although Mr. Zivich did not personally sign the release
agreement, he accepted and enjoyed the benefits of the
contract. In fact, when the injury occurred, Mr. Zivich was
the parent who was at the practice field that evening. Thus,
Mr. Zivich's conduct conveys an intention to enjoy the
benefits of his wife's agreement and be bound by it. Under
the doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence, Mr. Zivich may
not assert his rights against the Club.

64. Massachuestts
Sharon v. City of Newton, 2002 Mass. Lexis
384 (Mass. 2002)

65. Sharon v. City of Newton, 2002 Mass.
Lexis 384 (Mass. 2002)
• Father signed release for daughter to be
cheerleader

66. Sharon v. City of Newton: Minor signing K
On November 5, 1998, having reached the age
of majority, Merav filed suit against the city of
Newton, alleging negligence (Count I) and the
negligent hiring and retention of the
cheerleading coach (Count II).
Merav unequivocally repudiated the release (to
the extent it might be deemed a contract
executed by her) by filing suit against the city

67. Sharon v. City of Newton: Minor signing K
This comports with the fundamental liberty
interest of parents in the rearing of their
children, and is not inconsistent with the
purpose behind our public policy permitting
minors to void their contracts.

68. Sharon v. City of Newton: Parents signing
Release
For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that
Merav’s father had the authority to bind his minor
child to an exculpatory release that was a proper
condition of her voluntary participation in
extracurricular sports activities offered by the city.

69. North Dakota
McPhail v. Bismarck Park District, 2003 ND 4;
655 N.W.2d 411; 2003 N.D. LEXIS 3 (ND
2003)

70. McPhail v. Bismarck Park District
No discussion about a parent signing a release
for a minor
Entire discussion was about the validity of the
release

71. McPhail v. Bismarck Park District
We hold the Parent Agreement signed by
McPhail clearly and unambiguously exonerates
the Park District for injuries sustained by
Kondrad while participating in the BLAST
program and which were allegedly caused by
the negligent conduct of the Park District. We
further hold, therefore, the district court did not
err in granting summary judgment dismissing
Kondrad’s action against the Park District, and
we affirm.

72. Colorado
C.R.S. 13-22-107 (2008)
Enacted after Supreme Court decision in
Cooper v Aspen Skiing Co, 48 P3d 1229,
(Colo, 2002)

73. C.R.S. 13-22-107 (2008)
13-22-107. Legislative declaration - definitions - children - waiver by parent of prospective negligence
claims
(1) (a) The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares it is the public policy of this state that:
(I) Children of this state should have the maximum opportunity to participate in sporting,
recreational, educational, and other activities where certain risks may exist;
(II) Public, private, and non-profit entities providing these essential activities to children in
Colorado need a measure of protection against lawsuits, and without the measure of protection these
entities may be unwilling or unable to provide the activities;
(III) Parents have a fundamental right and responsibility to make decisions concerning the care,
custody, and control of their children. The law has long presumed that parents act in the best interest of
their children.
(IV) Parents make conscious choices every day on behalf of their children concerning the risks
and benefits of participation in activities that may involve risk;
(V) These are proper parental choices on behalf of children that should not be ignored. So long
as the decision is voluntary and informed, the decision should be given the same dignity as decisions
regarding schooling, medical treatment, and religious education; and
(VI) It is the intent of the general assembly to encourage the affordability and availability of
youth activities in this state by permitting a parent of a child to release a prospective negligence claim of
the child against certain persons and entities involved in providing the opportunity to participate in the
activities.

74. C.R.S. 13-22-107 (2008)
(1)(b) The general assembly further declares that the Colorado supreme court's holding in case
number 00SC885, 48 P.3d 1229 (Colo. 2002), has not been adopted by the general assembly and does not
reflect the intent of the general assembly or the public policy of this state.
(2) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) "Child" means a person under eighteen years of age.
(b) For purposes of this section only, "parent" means a parent, as defined in section 19-1-103 (82),
C.R.S., a person who has guardianship of the person, as defined in section 19-1-103 (60), C.R.S., a person who
has legal custody, as defined in section 19-1-103 (73), C.R.S., a legal representative, as defined in section 19-1-
103 (73.5), C.R.S., a physical custodian, as defined in section 19-1-103 (84), C.R.S., or a responsible person, as
defined in section 19-1-103 (94), C.R.S.
(3) A parent of a child may, on behalf of the child, release or waive the child's prospective claim for negligence.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit a parent acting on behalf of his or her child to waive the
child's prospective claim against a person or entity for a willful and wanton act or omission, a reckless act or
omission, or a grossly negligent act or omission.

75. Weakness in CO law
So long as the decision is voluntary and informed
(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to
permit a parent acting on behalf of his or her child
to waive the child's prospective claim against a
person or entity for a willful and wanton act or
omission, a reckless act or omission, or a grossly
negligent act or omission.

76. Common Issues in these
Decisions
• Defendant was either a governmental entity
• Or a non-profit
• Large argument that activities would not be
available if no releases
• * see Fields, v. Thunder Cross Motor Sports Park
• Injuries seemed to be minor
• Well written Releases

77. Common Issues in these
Decisions
•Well Written Release
• Magic words present
•Plenty of time to read & review the release
•Lots of experience in the activity by the minor

78. States that allow limited right to sign away
a minor’s right to sue
Arizona: § 12-553. Limited liability of equine owners
and owners of equine facilities; exception; definitions
Alaska: Sec. 09.65.292. Parental waiver of child’s
negligence claim against provider of sports or
recreational activity

79. An Aside: Inherent failures of
Equine liability acts
Since the passage of Equine Liability Acts, not
one horse has been sued.
However suits against horse owners have
stayed constant.

80. STATES THAT HAVE REVERSED
ON RELEASE LAW THAT ONCE
SUPPORTED THE RIGHT TO
WAIVE A MINOR’S CLAIMS

81. Connecticut
Saccente v. La Flamme, Sr., et al., 2002 Conn.
Super. Lexis 3630 (November, 2002)
Overruled by:
Hanks v. Powder Ridge Restaurant Corp., 276
Conn. 314, 885 A.2d 734 (2005)
Reardon v. Windswept Farm, LLC, Et Al., 280
Conn. 153; 905 A.2d 1156; 2006 Conn. LEXIS
330

82. Wisconsin
Osborn, et al. v. Cascade Mountain, Inc., 2002
Wis. App. Lexis 1216 (November, 2002)
Global Travel Marketing, Inc v. Shea, 2005 Fla.
LEXIS 1454
Overruled by
Atkins v. Swimwest Family Fitness Center,
2005 WI 4; 2005 Wisc. LEXIS 2

83. Florida
Gonzalez v. City of Coral Gables, 871 So.2d
1067, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D1147
Global Travel Marketing, Inc v. Shea, 2005 Fla.
LEXIS 1454
Overruled by
Fields, v. Thunder Cross Motor Sports Park;
961 So. 2d 1127; 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 12241;
32 Fla. L. Weekly D 1865

84. Fields, v. Thunder Cross Motor Sports Park
Based on these public policy concerns, it is
clear that the pre-injury release executed by
Bobby Jones on behalf of his now deceased
son was unenforceable because it prevented
the minor's estate from bringing a cause of
action against the commercial establishment
that provided the activity which resulted in the
minor's death.

85. Fields, v. Thunder Cross Motor Sports Park
• For the reasons set forth above, we hold that a
pre-injury release executed by a parent on behalf
of a minor child is unenforceable against the minor
or the minor's estate in a tort action arising from
injuries resulting from participation in a
commercial activity

86. Florida Does Allow Arbitration
Global Travel Marketing, Inc v. Shea, 2005 Fla.
LEXIS 1454
• FL Supreme Court held a parent’s signature
could bind parents to binding arbitration
• Arbitration clause was in a release
Son killed by wild animal on African Safari

87. And if you Read Fields with Gonzalez
Gonzalez v. City of Coral Gables, 871 So. 2d 1067;
2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6612; 29 Fla. L. Weekly D
1147
• A release signed by a parent for a non-
profit/charity/governemental program may be
upheld
• Fields speaks to Commercial Activities.
• Gonzalez was a non-profit/governmental youth
program release

88. But Do your own research on
that

89. Odd Cases
Applbaum vs Golden Acres Farm and
Ranch, 333 F. Supp. 2d 31; 2004 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 18130
• Release signed by father, child was injured
• Bad Release
• Issue of release covering minor was not ever
discussed by parties or court

90. States that have ruled Releases Void
Louisiana: C.C. Art. 2004 (2005). Clause that excludes or limits liability. Any
clause is null that, in advance, excludes or limits the liability of one party for
intentional or gross fault that causes damage to the other party. Any clause is null
that, in advance, excludes or limits the liability of one party for causing physical
injury to the other party.
Montana: MCA § 27-1-701 Liability for negligence as well as willful acts. Except as
otherwise provided by law, everyone is responsible not only for the results of his
willful acts but also for an injury occasioned to another by his want of ordinary care
or skill in the management of his property or person except so far as the latter has
willfully or by want of ordinary care brought the injury upon himself. See: Spath v.
Dillon 97 F. Supp 2d 1215.
Connecticut: Hanks v. Powder Ridge Restaurant Corp., 276 Conn. 314, 885 A.2d
734 (2005) and Reardon v. Windswept Farm, LLC, Et Al., 280 Conn. 153; 905 A.2d
1156; 2006 Conn. LEXIS 330 (See Connecticut Supreme Court overrules prior law
in deciding releases no longer valid)
Virginia: Johnson’s Adm’x v. Richmond and Danville R.R. Co., 86 Va. 975, 11 S.E.
829 (1890), and upheld in Heitt v. Lake Barnroft 418 SE 2d 894

91. States Where Court Interpretation of
Statute Restrict the Use of Releases
Hawaii: Revised Statute § 663-1.54. Recreational
activity liability. Provides protection from inherent
risk of an activity.
New York: General Obligation Law § 5-326
Releases not valid in places of amusement for a
fee.
West Virginia: Article 3B. Whitewater
Responsibility Act.

92. States Where the Supreme Court Has Ruled
Against Releases but Not Voided Them
• Arizona: Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc., 2005 Ariz. LEXIS 53 (See
Surprising Arizona Supreme Court Decision Further Endangers Release
Language)
• New Mexico: Berlangieri v. Running Elk Corporation, 132 N.M. 332;2002
NMCA 60;48 P.3d 70;2002 N.M. App. 39;41 N.M. St. B. Bull. 25 (See Release
of Liability Found to Violate Public Policy)
• West Virginia: Kyriazis v. University of West Virginia; 192 W. Va. 60; 450
S.E.2d 649; 1994 W. Va. LEXIS 161, Murphy v. North American River
Runners, Inc., 186 W. Va. 310; 412 S.E.2d 504; 1991 W. Va. LEXIS 222
• Wisconsin: Atkins v. Swimwest Family Fitness Center, 2005 WI 4; 2005 Wisc.
LEXIS 2 (See Wisconsin Supreme Court decision threatens businesses relying
on releases)
• Vermont: Dalury v. S-K-I, Ltd, 164 Vt 329; 670 A.2d 795; 1995 Vt. Lexis 127
(See Killington Held Potentially Liable to the Ski Bums)

93. Decisions Voided Releases for Minors
Michigan: Woodman v Kera, L.L.C., 2008 Mich.
App. LEXIS 1628
New Jersey: Hojnowski v Vans Skate Park, 187 NJ
323, 339; 901 A2d 381 (2006)
Utah: Hawkins v Peart, 2001 UT 94; 37 P3d 1062,
1066 (Utah, 2002)

94. Decisions Voided Releases for Minors
Washington: Scott v Pac West Mountain Resort,
119 Wash 2d 484; 834 P2d 6 (1992)
Maine: Rice, et als, vs. American Skiing Company,
Et Als, 2000 Me. Super. LEXIS 90

95. References: Law Reviews
37 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 439 Suffolk University Law
Review 2004 We, The Parents and Participant, Promise
Not to Sue ... Until There is an Accident.
2002 Utah L. Rev. 601, Utah Law Review, 2002, The
Children Must [and the Timorous May] Stay At Home
Hawkins v. Peart
36 U.S.F. L. Rev. 535, University of San Francisco Law
Review, Winter, 2002, The Theory of the Waiver Scale:
An Argument Why Parents Should Be Able to Waive
Their Children's Tort Liability Claims

96. References: Outdoor Recreation Law
Review
Case Brief: California Appellate Court rules in favor
of releases when signed by a parent
States Where Releases Are Void or Restricted
signed by a parent
Arizona allows a parent to sign away a minor’s right
to sue for equine activities
Alaska enacts law allowing parents to sign releases

97. References: Outdoor Recreation Law
Review
Case Brief: Case against summer camp offers great
insight into Massachusetts release law
West Virginia court invalidates release and third part
indemnification in case against whitewater outfitter
Case Brief: California Appellate Court rules in favor
of releases when signed by a parent
Connecticut Supreme Court overrules prior law in
deciding releases no longer valid

98. References: Outdoor Recreation Law
Review
Pending Florida Case Leaves Questions about
Release Validity
Case Brief: Florida Court Establishes Arbitration
Precedent in Travel Company Case
Wisconsin Supreme Court decision threatens
businesses relying on releases
Is it Really Worth the Paper It’s Written On? Part I
Is it Really Worth the Paper It's Written On? Part II

99. References: Outdoor Recreation Law
Review
Release Forms — An Update
A Not So Minor Problem
Parent’s Ability to Release Claims on Behalf of
Child — Revisited
Instructor-Student Liability
Minors and Releases — Revisited
Parents’ Signatures on Release Forms: Is One
Enough?

100. References: Outdoor Recreation Law
Review
Minors and Releases: An Update
Parent’s Ability to Release Claims on Behalf of Child
and Other Issues — Revisited

101. To Find these Documents
Google Search: SLRA: Minors & Releases.ppt
Posted as a Google Doc
Or go to: http://rec-law.blogspot.com/
My blog with link to Google docs.
Or email me and I will send it to you:
Recreation.law@gmail.com

102. Thank You