Burns, J. v. Philly Trampoline Parks, 3544 EDA 2016

On May 11, 2014, Joseph and Dawn Burns and their son visited Sky Zone; Joseph was later injured on a trampoline.
Sky Zone required completion of a written participant agreement containing an arbitration clause to use the trampolines.
Dawn completed and signed participant agreements at a kiosk for both Joseph and their son; Sky Zone staff could not see the kiosk screens.
Joseph testified he did not personally sign the agreement, that Dawn “usually handles that stuff,” that he was unaware she had signed, and that he would have signed if necessary to participate.
The issue reached the Superior Court; the attached opinion is a dissent by Judge Bowes arguing agency by implication existed and arbitration should be enforced.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Joseph Burns is bound by an arbitration clause in a participation agreement he did not personally sign	Burns: agreement unenforceable against him because he did not sign it	Sky Zone: Dawn signed on Joseph's behalf; her actions created agency/implied authority making the agreement binding	Dissent would hold Dawn had implied authority to sign for Joseph and would enforce arbitration and remand to arbitration

Petersen v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 155 A.3d 641 (Pa. Super. 2017) (party asserting agency bears burden of proof)
Walton v. Johnson, 66 A.3d 782 (Pa. Super. 2013) (agency may be created by express, implied, apparent authority, or estoppel)
Washburn v. N. Health Facilities, Inc., 121 A.3d 1008 (Pa. Super. 2015) (agency principles and burden of proof explained)
Scott v. Purcell, 415 A.2d 56 (Pa. 1980) (agency inferred from facts, including parties’ conduct)
Wisler v. Manor Care of Lancaster PA, LLC, 124 A.3d 317 (Pa. Super. 2015) (family ties may be relevant to implied agency)
Croft v. Malli, 105 A.2d 372 (Pa. 1954) (marital status alone does not create agency but is competent evidence when combined with other circumstances)