80 A.3d 345
Md.2013Background
- BJ’s Incredible Eads’ Club Rules required a parent to sign on behalf of a minor for access to a play area at BJ’s in Owings Mills, Maryland.
- The agreement included an exculpatory clause releasing BJ’s from liability for injuries and an indemnification clause obligating the parent to defend and hold BJ’s harmless for claims arising from use of the Play Center.
- Ephraim Rosen, a five-year-old, was injured in the Kids’ Club when an elevated plastic apparatus over a padded but inadequately cushioned area caused a head injury.
- The Rosens sued BJ’s for negligence; BJ’s moved for summary judgment relying on Wolf v. Ford to enforce the exculpatory clause.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in BJ’s favor; the Court of Special Appeals reversed, invalidating the clauses on public policy grounds; the Maryland Supreme Court granted review.
- The issue presented is whether a parent’s pre-injury exculpatory clause for a child in a commercial play area is enforceable under Maryland public policy and related doctrines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a parent-signed exculpatory clause for a minor is enforceable | Rosen argues public policy invalidates pre-injury waivers for children. | BJ’s argues Wolf allows enforceability unless public policy exceptions apply. | Exculpatory clause enforceable; public policy not violated. |
| Whether parental authority to settle or release a child’s claim supports enforcing pre-injury waivers | Rosens rely on limits on parental power to release a child’s claims. | Parental power to settle claims supports enforcing waivers. | Parental power to terminate existing claims does not compel pre-injury waivers; but in this case supports enforcement of the exculpatory clause. |
| Whether the public-interest exception in Wolf should invalidate the pre-injury waiver | Public interest concerns require invalidation of the waiver. | No public-interest transaction exception applies here. | No transaction affecting the public interest; waiver enforceable. |
| Whether parens patriae supports invalidating a parent-signed waiver against a commercial enterprise | State’s parens patriae authority justifies invalidating the waiver for minors. | Parens patriae not applicable to uphold parent’s contract on behalf of child. | Parens patriae does not invalidate the waiver. |
| Whether distinguishing commercial vs non-commercial entities is appropriate | Court of Special Appeals relied on commercial/non-commercial distinction to invalidate waivers. | Maryland law does not support such a dichotomy. | Commercial vs non-commercial dichotomy rejected; no basis to invalidate here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolf v. Ford, 335 Md. 525 (Md. 1994) (exculpatory clauses generally valid but with exceptions for public interest)
- Rosen v. BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., 206 Md.App. 708 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2012) (intermediate court invalidated parent-signed exculpatory and indemnification clauses)
- In re Najasha B., 409 Md. 20 (Md. 2009) (State intervention when a parent is unfit; parens patriae context cited)
- Bernstein v. Kapneck, 290 Md. 452 (Md. 1981) (parental authority to settle a child’s tort claim; societal expectations)
- Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park, 901 A.2d 381 (N.J. 2006) (discussed as illustrative foreign authority on pre-injury waivers)
- Kirton v. Fields, 997 So.2d 349 (Fla. 2008) (public interest considerations; cited in dissent and related discussions)