DAVID JOHNSON VS. SKY ZONE INDOOR TRAMPOLINE PARK IN SPRINGFIELD (L-5446-20, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2489-20

Ten-year-old David Johnson was injured at a Sky Zone trampoline park after his mother, Shalonda Johnson, signed an electronic "Participation Agreement, Release and Assumption of Risk" on a kiosk (July 14, 2018).
The Agreement included exculpatory language and an arbitration clause requiring disputes to be decided by JAMS arbitration, waiving jury trial rights, and containing a one-year filing window for adults (minor governed by statute of limitations). It also contained a severability/merger clause and an acknowledgment that the patron read and consented.
Plaintiffs sued for personal injuries on August 13, 2020. Defendants moved to compel arbitration; the Law Division granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice on March 24, 2021.
Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the arbitration clause was ambiguous, unenforceable against a minor’s claims (relying on Hojnowski), procedurally and substantively unconscionable, and invalid because JAMS was unavailable.
The Appellate Division affirmed enforcement of the arbitration clause, rejected plaintiffs’ arguments, vacated the dismissal with prejudice, and remanded with instructions to stay court proceedings pending arbitration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the arbitration clause gave clear notice of waiver of judicial forum and jury	The clause is ambiguous, uses confusing formatting and technical language; therefore no clear waiver	Mother checked/entered identifying information at kiosk, language states waiver of jury/right to sue—clear assent	Enforceable: language sufficiently clear to notify waiver of jury and suit rights
Whether a parent may bind a minor to arbitration of tort claims	Hojnowski bars parent from releasing certain claims of a minor at commercial recreation facility	Parent signed; Hojnowski does not prohibit arbitration of a minor's claims	Enforceable: arbitration of minor’s claims is consistent with NJ law; parental signature sufficed
Whether designation of JAMS (unavailable) voids the arbitration clause	JAMS unavailability renders arbitration provision impossible/unenforceable	Severability clause + NJAA/Federal Arbitration Act permit court-appointed arbitrator or defaults	Enforceable: designation of JAMS not essential; court/NJAA/Federal Act provide alternatives
Whether the clause is procedurally/substantively unconscionable (adhesion contract)	Electronic kiosk, time pressure, and adhesion form render clause unconscionable	No showing under Delta Funding factors to invalidate clause	Enforceable: plaintiffs did not carry burden to show unconscionability; clause survives

Flanzman v. Jenny Craig, Inc., 244 N.J. 119 (2020) (arbitral institution designation not indispensable; NJAA/Federal Arbitration Act supply default mechanisms)
Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park, 187 N.J. 323 (2006) (arbitration of minor’s claims is consistent with NJ law concerning children’s rights)
Atalese v. U.S. Legal Servs. Grp., L.P., 219 N.J. 430 (2014) (clarity is required to show consumer knowingly waives statutory/constitutional rights)
Kernahan v. Home Warranty Adm'r of Fla., Inc., 236 N.J. 301 (2019) (whether parties agreed to arbitrate is a question of law assessed under state contract principles)
Delta Funding Corp. v. Harris, 189 N.J. 28 (2006) (four-factor test for evaluating unconscionability in adhesion contracts)
Arafa v. Health Express Corp., 243 N.J. 147 (2020) (severability clauses indicate intent that valid parts survive excision of invalid terms)
GMAC v. Pittella, 205 N.J. 572 (2011) (trial court must stay judicial proceedings pending arbitration; stay may be limited to arbitrable claims)
Hirsch v. Amper Fin. Servs., LLC, 215 N.J. 174 (2013) (New Jersey policy favors enforcement of arbitration agreements)