254 A.3d 1271
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2021Background
- Tongol booked and paid for a Sky Zone party for a group of children, listed each child and birthdate at a kiosk, and electronically signed Sky Zone’s online Agreement without fully reading it or assistance from staff.
- The Agreement included broad waivers of rights and a mandatory arbitration clause for claims arising from injuries.
- Tongol was not a parent, guardian, or holder of a power of attorney for several of the children; Gayles (mother/guardian of minor Justin) did not execute any power of attorney.
- Justin fractured his leg while at Sky Zone; Gayles sued Sky Zone for negligence (individually and as guardian ad litem).
- Sky Zone moved to compel arbitration and for summary judgment, asserting Tongol had apparent authority to bind the parents; the trial court denied the motions and the denial of arbitration was appealed.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, holding Sky Zone failed to prove, as a matter of law, that Tongol had apparent authority to execute the Agreement on Gayles’s behalf.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tongol had apparent authority to bind Gayles to the waiver and arbitration clause | Tongol lacked actual or apparent authority; Gayles never manifested assent and gave no POA | Sky Zone reasonably relied on Tongol’s representations on the kiosk and her signing for the group | No apparent authority; reliance on Tongol’s statements was unreasonable and not traceable to Gayles; arbitration not compelled |
| Whether Sky Zone’s admission/waiver procedure created an appearance of authority | Gayles did not interact with Sky Zone and gave no manifestations to create authority | Sky Zone’s standard online admission process and acceptance of Tongol’s signature made reliance reasonable | Sky Zone’s unilateral procedure insufficient to show principal’s manifest conduct; appearance of authority not established |
| Enforceability of a waiver of a minor’s tort claims signed by a non-parent/third party | Such waivers by non-parents are unenforceable or at least suspect | Enforceability is preserved if apparent authority exists to bind the parent/guardian | Court declined to enforce arbitration here and noted existing authority (Hojnowski) raises serious doubts about a non-parent’s ability to release a minor’s tort claims; did not fully decide all enforceability questions |
| Whether requiring verification from parents imposes an unreasonable burden on recreational businesses | Gayles: verification is required to protect parents’ rights | Sky Zone: requiring signed POAs or equivalent would be unworkable and crippling to its business model | Court rejected Sky Zone’s policy argument as insufficient; suggested feasible alternatives (e.g., online parental signature upload) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mercer v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 324 N.J. Super. 290 (App. Div. 1999) (sets elements and contours of apparent authority doctrine)
- Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park, 187 N.J. 323 (2006) (parent lacks legal capacity to release minor’s future tort claims as a condition of admission)
- Moore v. Woman to Woman Obstetrics & Gynecology, LLC, 416 N.J. Super. 30 (App. Div. 2010) (no legal theory permits one spouse to bind another to a trial-waiver without consent)
- AMB Property, LP v. Penn America Ins. Co., 418 N.J. Super. 441 (App. Div. 2011) (apparent authority may be established where principal’s prior conduct and industry practices create reasonable reliance)
- Hirsch v. Amper Fin. Servs., LLC, 215 N.J. 174 (2013) (courts apply state contract-law principles to determine arbitrability)
- Kernahan v. Home Warranty Adm’r of Fla., Inc., 236 N.J. 301 (2019) (de novo review applies to arbitration-enforceability decisions)