Sky Zone Injuries: What the Law Says and What It May Mean for You

What Sky Zone Is, and What It Owes Guests Like You

The West Virginia court described Sky Zone as "the proprietor of a 'trampoline park'" that "requires customers to sign" a release before they jump, and said that "[a] minor wishing to visit Sky Zone must have a parent or guardian sign the Release." That description comes from the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia's memorandum decision No. 20-0344. This page describes Sky Zone only as the three court opinions cited here describe it, and says nothing about its parks, its ownership or its safety.

Trampoline Injury Legal Center is not affiliated with, endorsed by or sponsored by Sky Zone, and naming Sky Zone does not imply that it did anything wrong. None of the three decisions below is a finding that Sky Zone caused anyone's injury.

The legal idea that applies to a business of this type is premises liability: the duty of a property owner or operator to keep its premises reasonably safe for the people it invites in. A business that opens its doors to paying guests generally owes those guests reasonable care, measured against what a careful operator would do in similar circumstances. The law of the state where the park sits defines that duty.

For someone who was hurt, this means the question is not only what the check-in form said, but also whether the park took reasonable care. Whether it did is a question the facts decide, which is why details of what the area looked like and how the visit unfolded matter while the memory is fresh.

Common Injuries at Trampoline Parks and What They May Mean for a Claim

The injuries this site covers in trampoline accidents include fractures, spinal injuries and traumatic brain injuries, along with sprains and other soft-tissue harm. This page offers no statistics on how often any of them happen, and nothing here is medical information. Questions about a diagnosis or treatment belong with the treating doctors.

What matters legally is how the injury happened, because that often decides which legal theory a claim may rest on. Three come up most often in trampoline park cases.

If the injury traces to the condition of the place, such as the surfaces, the padding, the layout or how it was kept up, the question is usually one of premises liability, explained above.

Negligent supervision is a failure to provide adequate oversight of an activity or of the people taking part in it. If you were hurt in a collision or a child was hurt near bigger jumpers, the question might be how jumpers were monitored, how court rules were enforced, or how children and adults were kept apart.

Product liability is legal responsibility that may attach when a defective product, such as a trampoline frame, a spring, a mat or padding, causes an injury. If the equipment itself seemed to fail, this theory asks whether it was defective and whether the defect caused the harm, which are again questions of fact.

A collision between jumpers, a landing on an exposed frame and a failure of equipment are different events, and each points toward different evidence. For a person sorting through what happened, the useful starting point is often exactly how and where the injury occurred, and whether any equipment involved was kept.

What Sky Zone's Participation Agreement Says — and What Three Courts Decided

A participation agreement, often called a release, is a document a guest signs before entering. It may try to limit the operator's liability for injuries, require disputes to go to arbitration instead of court, or both. Arbitration is a private way of resolving disputes outside the court system, decided by an arbitrator rather than a judge or jury.

The version of Sky Zone's agreement quoted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court contained this language:

"I understand that by agreeing to arbitrate any dispute as set forth in this section, I am waiving my right, and the right(s) of the minor child(ren) above, to maintain a lawsuit against [Sky Zone] and the other Releasees for any and all claims covered by this Agreement. By agreeing to arbitrate, I understand that I will NOT have the right to have my claim determined by a jury, and the minor child(ren) above will NOT have the right to have claim(s) determined by a jury."

That Pennsylvania version also said claims "SHALL BE BROUGHT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF ITS ACCRUAL (i.e., the date of the alleged injury)." The New Jersey version said one year "FOR AN ADULT AND WITHIN THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A MINOR." Courts decided what parts of these documents could be enforced, and the three results differ.

Pennsylvania (2025): a parent signed for a child

In Nos. 24 EAP 2023 and 25 EAP 2023, decided September 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania considered an agreement one parent had signed on behalf of a minor. It held the arbitration provision was not enforceable against the injured minor or against the parent who did not sign, finding that "parents are without authority to bind a minor child to an agreement to arbitrate." The Court affirmed the Superior Court's orders.

The Court limited its ruling. It decided the arbitration provision only: the release of liability was "outside of the scope of this appeal," and the Court did not reach the agreement's attempt to shorten the time to bring a claim. Two Justices filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. This is Pennsylvania law only.

West Virginia (2021): a minor signed for himself

In memorandum decision No. 20-0344, filed February 19, 2021, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia dealt with a release the record showed was signed by the minor himself, not a parent. It applied the long-standing West Virginia rule that "[c]ontracts by minors are generally not void, but voidable only, and may be ratified or disaffirmed after majority." Because the minor disaffirmed the release, its arbitration clause and its delegation provision on reaching adulthood, the Court found "no error in the circuit court's determination that there was no valid, enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties." It also rejected an equitable estoppel argument. This is West Virginia law only.

New Jersey (2022): an adult signed for himself

In Docket No. A-1861-20, decided May 16, 2022 and approved for publication, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division addressed an adult who placed a check mark next to an arbitration provision contained in an agreement he signed to enter a trampoline park. The court held the provision "valid and enforceable" and called its language "a clear and unambiguous waiver of plaintiff's right to a jury trial and to pursue his claims in a court of law." It remanded for an order compelling him to arbitrate his personal-injury claims against the Sky Zone defendants. This is New Jersey law only.

What the three rulings do and do not mean

No one of these decisions is the rule everywhere. A ruling that a dispute goes to arbitration is not a ruling that a claim is barred, and a ruling that arbitration cannot be forced is not a ruling that a release is invalid. What a participation agreement does in any other state depends on that state's law and the facts, including who signed, their age and what the document said. The Urban Air release decisions show courts weighing similar questions about another operator's paperwork.

For a reader holding a signed kiosk form, the practical points are who actually signed it, how old the injured person was, and whether a copy of the agreement can be obtained. Those are the facts these courts looked at first.

Which State's Rules Decide the Filing Deadline and the Damages Allowed

State law, not a single national rule, governs most trampoline park injury claims. The deadlines, the fault rules, the categories of damages and the rules for claims after a death all come from the state whose law applies, which is usually tied to where the injury happened.

The most pressing of these for you is the statute of limitations: the deadline set by law for filing a lawsuit. A claim filed after it runs can be barred, however strong the facts, so missing it can mean losing the claim altogether. When that clock starts, and whether it pauses, differ by state. Some states treat minors differently or set separate rules for claims against certain defendants, such as public entities. This page gives no period for any state, because each one comes from that state's own statute. The site's page on California trampoline injury law is one example of how a single state's rules are laid out.

If the park argues that you or your child shared some blame, the state's fault rule decides what that costs. Under comparative fault, responsibility is divided according to each person's share, and an injured person's own share can reduce what the law allows. Other states use different rules, including contributory fault, which can treat any fault by the injured person more harshly.

For a family that has lost someone, a wrongful death claim may be available to surviving family members when a person dies as a result of another's wrongful act or negligence. Who may bring it, what damages the law allows and the deadline for filing it are all set state by state.

Because the deadline, the fault rule and the agreement's effect all come from one particular state's law, identifying that state, and then its filing deadline, is usually the first thing to sort out.

What You Would Need to Show if You Bring a Claim

A premises liability or negligence claim generally rests on four elements, each of which asks a question about your visit. Duty: did the operator owe you a legal duty of care? Breach: did the operator fail to meet that standard? Causation: did that failure cause the injury? Damages: did the injury produce harm the law recognizes, such as medical expenses, lost earnings or pain and suffering, as the applicable state's law defines them?

A fall on a trampoline is not proof that anyone was careless, and an equipment failure is not proof of a defect. For someone with medical bills in hand, this means whether those bills, lost earnings or other harm can be recovered rests on the facts that can be shown, not on the seriousness of the injury alone. If one element cannot be shown, the claim can fail even when the injury is severe.

The participation agreement is one issue a claim may turn on, but not the only one. Even where a court decides a dispute belongs in arbitration, as the New Jersey court did, duty, breach and causation remain separate questions for whoever decides the case.

The records that are typically relevant to these elements include:

• medical records and bills showing the injury and treatment;
• photos or video of the area, the equipment and the injury;
• the incident report filed with the park, if one was made;
• the names and contact information of witnesses;
• any equipment involved, and a copy of the agreement signed at check-in.

Injured people and families often keep these together, along with a note of the date, the time and which court or attraction was involved.

Questions Worth Asking Before Deciding How to Proceed

The three court decisions above show that a few plain facts can change the legal picture. A person in this situation may want to think through these questions:

• Which state's law applies? That usually follows where the injury happened, and it decides the deadline, the fault rule and how a participation agreement is treated.
• Was the injured person a minor or an adult at the time? Pennsylvania and West Virginia both treated a minor's situation differently from an adult's, for different reasons.
• Who signed the participation agreement: the injured person, one parent, both parents or no one? The Pennsylvania ruling turned on a parent signing for a child, the West Virginia ruling on a minor signing for himself and the New Jersey ruling on an adult signing for himself.
• What was the injury, and how did it happen? Those facts bear on duty, breach and causation, and on whether premises liability, negligent supervision or product liability is in play.
• Was an incident report filed at the park, and does anyone have a copy?

If you are a parent who signed for a child, or an adult who checked a box at a kiosk, these questions may feel overwhelming at once. Taking them one at a time often makes the situation clearer. A case evaluation with our attorney is a conversation about what happened and which of these questions the applicable state's law answers.