Adventure Park Waivers Can’t Stop Kid Suits, Says Michigan Court

A parent can’t be required to indemnify an adventure park for a child’s injury claims, the Michigan Court of Appeals said.

The state’s common law rule is that a parent can’t sign away their child’s legal rights, the court said Tuesday. Requiring parental indemnification effectively limits those rights, it said.

Judge Mark T. Boonstra, who authored the opinion, relied on the Michigan Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Woodman v. Kera LLC, which said a guardian “cannot contractually bind his minor ward.”

The ruling upholds a trial judge’s decision against Auburnfly LLC, which owns and operates TreeRunner Adventure Park in suburban Detroit. The company was sued by mother Karen Knaack, on behalf of her child, for negligence after the child was injured during a June 2020 event.

Prior to the event, Knaack signed an agreement that said she would “indemnify and hold harmless” Auburnfly for any injury she or her child sustained. The company relied on the agreement to file a third-party complaint against the mother for indemnification, but a judge ruled for the mother on summary disposition.

While Auburnfly argued that the contract doesn’t affect a child’s legal rights, but rather those of the parents and the company, the appeals court said all the facts and circumstances warrant examination to determine whether a contract runs afoul of public policy. In this situation, it’s apparent that the agreement intends to limit a child’s ability to sue Auburnfly, Boonstra wrote.

Importantly, children require a representative to sue for them, and in many cases, that is the parent, the court noted. Therefore, the parent would have to pay on behalf of the negligent party if the child was successful in their lawsuit.

“Moreover, even if the child brought suit through a representative, the child’s material situation would almost certainly not be improved by winning the lawsuit, if the ultimate source of payment was the child’s parent,” Boonstra wrote. “In the vast majority of cases, a parent or child in that position simply would not bring the litigation, which effectively results in the limitation of the child’s rights.”

He also wrote that it’s not the appeals court’s role to change common law, as that should come from the legislature or state Supreme Court.

Knaack is represented by Marko Law and Runyan Law Group. Auburnfly is represented by Plunkett Cooney PC.

The case is MK v. Auburnfly LLC, Mich. Ct. App., No. 364577, 12/17/24.