25 EAP 2023
Pa.Sep 25, 2025Background
- This Pennsylvania Supreme Court case involves Jennifer and Samuel Santiago challenging a Superior Court ruling affirming a trial court order in a Philadelphia County civil action against Philly Trampoline Park, LLC and Sky Zone entities arising from injuries at a Sky Zone facility.
- The central dispute concerns a Participation Agreement, Release and Assumption of Risk that includes an arbitration provision and whether that provision binds the minor claimant(s) and their parents.
- The Majority held the arbitration provision unenforceable against the non-signing parents, foreclosing arbitration for those claims.
- The concurring and dissenting opinion agrees the provision is not enforceable against non-signing parents but disagrees about enforceability against the injured minors themselves.
- The dissent emphasizes arbitration is a substantive forum-selection choice that does not affect a minor’s substantive rights and is favored by public policy, citing Arbiter cases and Viking River Cruises.
- Justice Dougherty joins the concurring and dissenting opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arbitration binds non-signing parents | Santiago argues parents cannot bind child to arbitration. | Defendants contend parents can bind the minor to arbitration via the agreement. | Unenforceable against non-signing parents. |
| Whether arbitration binds injured minors themselves | Arbitration is a favored forum and does not harm minors’ rights. | Arbitration may be less favorable and limited rights, but allows forum selection. | Majority-held unenforceable; dissenting view contested. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fastuca v. L.W. Molnar & Assocs., 10 A.3d 1230 (Pa. 2011) (arbitration policy principles cited)
- Borgia v. Prudential Ins. Co., 750 A.2d 843 (Pa. 2000) (public policy favoring arbitration)
- Flightways Corp. v. Keystone Helicopter Corp., 331 A.2d 184 (Pa. 1975) (early arbitration-scope principles)
- Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. 639 (2022) (arbitration as forum-selection clause; does not alter substantive rights)
- Emporium Area Joint Sch. Auth. v. Anundson Const. & Bldg. Supply Co., 166 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1960) (arbitration as expeditious forum option for minors)
- Patriotic Ord. Sons of Am. Hall & Ass’n v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 157 A. 259 (Pa. 1931) (public policy considerations for arbitration)