Can You Sue a Trampoline Park If You Signed a Waiver?

The Document You Signed May Contain Two Different Terms

A waiver or release of liability is a contract term in which a person agrees in advance not to hold a business responsible for certain injuries. At a trampoline park, it is usually part of a longer document the courts call a participation agreement or a release agreement.

That same document often carries a second, very different term. An arbitration clause is a provision requiring disputes to be decided by a private arbitrator rather than by a judge or jury in court. A release tries to end the claim itself. An arbitration clause decides where and how a dispute is heard.

Courts can, and do, rule on each part separately. A court may decide that an arbitration clause is enforceable without saying a word about whether the release bars the injury claim, or refuse to enforce the arbitration clause while leaving the release question for later. Several of the decisions below did exactly that.

So the piece of paper you signed can raise two separate fights: whether your case goes to court or arbitration, and whether the release stops the claim at all. Our related page on trampoline park waivers and injury claims walks through the two parts in more detail.

When the Park Points to the Release: Why Its Language May Not End Your Claim

The starting point is the document's own words. Courts read a release as a contract and ask what the language actually covers: which activities, which parts of the property, which kinds of harm, and which people. Language that looks sweeping still has to reach the facts of your particular injury.

The decisions show how closely courts read. The New Jersey Appellate Division called the broad wording of an arbitration provision "a clear and unambiguous waiver" of the right to a jury trial. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal relied on the agreement's definition of covered activities, which included "use of any portion of the Premises," not just the jumping activities listed. In both, the outcome turned on specific words.

State law may also limit what a release can excuse. States differ on how they treat releases for recreational activities, on whether certain kinds of conduct can be released in advance at all, and on how they define ordinary negligence and more serious misconduct. That more serious category is often described in terms such as gross negligence or willful misconduct. For a family whose injury involved failed equipment or a lack of supervision, where the conduct falls on that line can matter as much as what the waiver says, because a state may treat a release of ordinary carelessness differently from a release of more serious misconduct.

The questions that tend to matter: Does the release describe the activity and kind of harm that actually happened? Does the conduct fit within what that state allows a business to release? And is the release even the question being decided right now, or is the fight about arbitration first?

If the Park Says Your Case Belongs in Arbitration

Being sent to arbitration is not the same as losing a claim. An arbitration clause decides the forum, the place and process for hearing the dispute, not who is right. But it changes a great deal: a private arbitrator rather than a jury, different rules, and often different timelines written into the agreement itself.

Four recent state decisions involving trampoline park agreements show how courts approach these clauses. Each reflects only its own state's law, and none decided the release of liability or whether the injury claim had merit.

• New Jersey. In a decision approved for publication, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No. A-1861-20, decided May 16, 2022, held that the arbitration provision contained in the agreement the plaintiff signed to enter a trampoline park is valid and enforceable, and directed the trial court to enter a new order compelling him to arbitrate his claims against the defendants. The court described the provision as "a clear and unambiguous waiver of plaintiff's right to a jury trial and to pursue his claims in a court of law." For an adult who signed a similarly worded agreement in New Jersey, this suggests the dispute may be heard by an arbitrator rather than a jury.
• Texas. In the Supreme Court of Texas, No. 24-0273, opinion delivered May 23, 2025, a parent had signed a release agreement on a first visit. Its arbitration clause sent disputes over "the scope, arbitrability, or validity" of the arbitration agreement to arbitration. Whether the release also covered a later visit was a scope question, so an arbitrator decides it, not a court. The Court affirmed and remanded for an order compelling arbitration and expressed no opinion on whether the release covered the later visit. For a Texas family, this means even the question of whether an old signature still applies may be decided outside court.
• Florida. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal, Case No. 5D2024-1487, decided July 11, 2025, held that the agreement an adult patron accepted sends personal-injury claims to arbitration and covers "use of any portion of the Premises," so the claim had "a significant relationship" to the agreement and must be arbitrated. It reversed and remanded for an order compelling arbitration. For someone hurt in Florida, this shows an injury away from the trampolines themselves may still fall within the agreement's arbitration terms.
• Missouri. In the Supreme Court of Missouri, No. SC100512, opinion issued March 4, 2025, a parent had signed a release for a minor. Its delegation clause, the part sending "scope, arbitrability, or validity" disputes to arbitration, was not specifically challenged, so challenges to the signer's authority and to whether the release reached beyond the day it was signed are for the arbitrator. The Court vacated the order refusing arbitration and remanded for an order compelling it, deciding neither challenge. For a Missouri family, this means arguments about a parent's signature may be heard by an arbitrator, not a judge.

None of these rulings found that any park operator caused an injury, was at fault or broke a law.

When Your Child Was Hurt: How Courts Treat a Minor's Waiver

Children change the analysis. Disaffirmance is a minor's legal right to undo a contract made before reaching the age of majority. A separate question is whether a parent's signature can bind a child at all. Courts treat these as different issues.

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, memorandum decision No. 20-0344, filed February 19, 2021, quoted West Virginia's rule that "[c]ontracts by minors are generally not void, but voidable only, and may be ratified or disaffirmed after majority." A minor who had signed the release himself disaffirmed it, along with its arbitration clause and delegation provision, on reaching majority. The Court found no error in the ruling that there was no valid, enforceable arbitration agreement. That is West Virginia law.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Nos. 24 EAP 2023 and 25 EAP 2023, decided September 25, 2025, addressed a participation agreement one parent signed for a minor. It held the arbitration provision is not enforceable against the minor or the parent who did not sign, concluding that "parents are without authority to bind a minor child to an agreement to arbitrate." The Court said the release provisions were "outside of the scope of this appeal," and it did not reach the agreement's attempt to shorten the time to bring claims. Two Justices concurred in part and dissented in part. That is Pennsylvania law.

Set beside the Missouri decision, where the parent's authority was left for the arbitrator, these rulings show why no national rule exists. If your child was hurt, how your state treats a parent's signature on a child's agreement is one of the first questions that shapes everything else.

Why the State Where Your Injury Happened Matters as Much as the Signature

The six decisions on this page come from Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New Jersey, Texas, Florida and Missouri. Each applies only that state's law, and the same park agreement may be treated one way in one state and another way across a state line.

The waiver is not the only rule that changes. A statute of limitations is the deadline set by law for bringing a claim, and these periods differ from state to state, as do the events that start them running and their exceptions. Some participation agreements also try to set their own shorter deadlines; the Pennsylvania agreement, for instance, said claims "shall be brought within one year of its accrual," a term the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found it unnecessary to address. For a family, this means the clock may be running while attention is focused on the waiver, and both the state's deadline and any deadline written into the agreement can matter.

Fault rules vary too. Comparative fault is a rule that divides responsibility among the people involved according to each one's share; some states use versions of it, and others use different approaches. In practice, a park may argue that the injured person shares some of the responsibility, and how that state divides fault can shape what a claim is worth. Damages rules also differ by state, including the rules for wrongful death, the claim a family may bring after someone dies. This national page states no specific period or fault rule for any state, because each must come from that state's own law. Our page on how a trampoline park injury claim works covers the broader picture.

The Records That Can Shape Your Waiver Dispute — and Why Timing Matters

Behind every waiver question sits the injury claim itself. In plain terms, a park owes people on its property a duty to keep it reasonably safe (premises liability) and to provide adequate oversight of the activity and the people taking part (negligent supervision). Either theory asks whether there was a duty, whether it was breached, whether that breach caused the injury, and what harm resulted.

The records that usually matter include:

• the signed participation agreement itself, in its exact wording and version;
• any incident or accident report made at the park;
• maintenance and inspection records for the trampoline, pad, net or other equipment involved;
• video footage and photographs of the area and the equipment;
• medical records documenting the injury and the treatment; and
• the names and contact details of people who saw what happened.

Much of this material sits with the park, not the family. Footage can be recorded over, equipment can be repaired or replaced, forms can be updated, and witnesses' memories fade. If footage of a worn pad or an unattended court is gone, the question it could have answered, including whether the conduct went beyond ordinary carelessness, may be harder to settle, and the deadlines discussed above keep running regardless.

The agreement's exact language deserves special attention. As the Florida and New Jersey decisions show, a few words defining what the document covers can decide the arbitration question, and a release that does not clearly reach the type of harm involved may not bar the claim. Families often find that the version they signed, and when they signed it, matters as much as what the park's current form says.

Questions That Shape What a Waiver Means for You

The rules above come down to a handful of questions, and the answer to each depends on the facts and on one state's law.

How old was the injured person when the document was signed, and who signed it? A minor signing alone, a parent signing for a child, and an adult signing for themselves have each been treated differently by the courts described here.

Does the release language clearly cover what happened, the activity, the part of the property, and the kind of harm?

Does the conduct at issue go beyond what that state allows a business to excuse in advance?

Which state's law governs, both where the injury happened and any state the agreement itself names?

Does the document contain an arbitration clause, and does it hand questions of "scope, arbitrability, or validity" to an arbitrator, as the Texas and Missouri agreements did?

These questions do not predict how any matter will come out. They mark the places where a waiver's effect is actually decided. If you would like to talk through how they relate to what happened at the park, a case evaluation with our attorney can cover the agreement, who signed it, and where the injury occurred. For injuries at home, our page on backyard trampoline injuries covers a different set of issues.