Trampoline Park Waivers and Injury Claims: What the Document Does and Does Not Decide

What a Trampoline Park Waiver Is — and What It Tries to Do

A trampoline waiver is a contract a park asks patrons to sign before entry, on paper or digitally. Courts and parks call it a waiver, a release or a participation agreement.

The first part is the release of liability: a promise, made before any injury, to give up the right to bring certain legal claims against the park and related companies. The second part is usually an arbitration clause: a promise to resolve disputes before a private decision-maker, called an arbitrator, instead of a judge or jury in a public court.

These parts can sit in the same paragraph, but courts may treat them as two different questions. A court can decide that the arbitration clause binds someone without deciding whether the release does, or refuse to enforce the arbitration clause and leave the release for another day.

If you are reading about a court ruling on one of these agreements, the first thing to identify is which part it addressed, because a ruling on one part says little about the other. For someone holding a signed form, a useful starting point is to locate both parts in the document and note the state, the date and who signed, since state contract law, the wording and the signer all shape the result.

Why the Release Language May or May Not Hold Up Against a Claim

No single national rule decides whether a release holds up. Each state's contract law governs.

Clarity is one common question: does the language plainly tell the signer what rights are being given up? The New Jersey Appellate Division, for example, upheld an arbitration provision in a trampoline park agreement because its "broad language is a clear and unambiguous waiver" of the right to a jury trial, as its opinion in Docket No. A-1861-20 states. That ruling is New Jersey law, and it concerned the arbitration provision.

Scope is another: does the document reach the activity, the area or the visit where the injury happened? Public policy is a third. States differ on what a person may give up in advance, and some treat claims of gross negligence or reckless conduct differently from claims of ordinary carelessness.

If you are holding a signed release, a release that is unclear, that does not reach the claim, or that a state's public policy limits may not have the effect its words suggest; one that is clear and covers the claim may. A person in this position may weigh whether the wording names the activity and area involved, and whether the facts suggest more than ordinary carelessness. A conversation with an attorney can help show how courts in that state have treated similar language.

What the Arbitration Clause Does — and Why Courts Have Examined It Separately

Arbitration is a private process in which the parties present their dispute to an arbitrator, often through an organization named in the contract. An arbitration clause decides the forum, meaning where a claim is heard and by whom. It does not decide whether the claim has merit, and a ruling sending a dispute to arbitration is not a ruling on the release.

Some agreements add a delegation clause: language inside the arbitration provision that sends disputes about the arbitration agreement itself, such as its scope or validity, to the arbitrator instead of a court. When a court finds a delegation clause binding, it may send even the threshold arguments to the arbitrator without deciding them.

This layering explains why court decisions can seem to say less than expected: a court may rule only on who decides, not on what is decided. For a family, that means an order compelling arbitration does not end the claim; it moves it. Someone reviewing an agreement may look for both an arbitration clause and delegation language, and an attorney can help sort out which questions a court, rather than an arbitrator, would likely hear.

How Six State Courts Have Ruled on Trampoline Park Arbitration Clauses

Each ruling below is a state court decision applying that state's law. None is a federal case. None decided whether any injury claim had merit, and none is a finding that any park operator caused an injury, was at fault or broke a law. Three involved one park operator's participation agreement, discussed further on the page about Sky Zone injury claims. Three involved an Urban Air park's release agreement, covered on the page about Urban Air park injury claims.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in Nos. 24 EAP 2023 and 25 EAP 2023, decided September 25, 2025, considered an agreement one parent signed for a minor. It held that the arbitration provision is not enforceable against the minor or the parent who did not sign, finding that "parents are without authority to bind a minor child to an agreement to arbitrate" (opinion). The Court decided the arbitration provision only, not the release. Two Justices concurred in part and dissented in part. For a Pennsylvania family, this means a parent's signature alone does not send a child's claim to arbitration.

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, in memorandum decision No. 20-0344, filed February 19, 2021, held that a minor who signed the release himself could disaffirm it, including its arbitration clause, on reaching majority. The Court found no error in the ruling that there was "no valid, enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties" (decision). For a West Virginia young adult who signed as a teenager, this means that signature may be undone.

The New Jersey Appellate Division decision described above, decided May 16, 2022 and approved for publication, held that an adult patron who signed the agreement himself must arbitrate his own injury claims. For a New Jersey adult who signed, this means the claim may be heard by an arbitrator rather than a jury.

The Supreme Court of Texas, in No. 24-0273, opinion delivered May 23, 2025, considered a release a parent signed on a first visit. Its clause sent disputes over "the scope, arbitrability, or validity" of the arbitration agreement to arbitration. Whether the release covered a later visit was a scope question for the arbitrator, not a court (opinion). The Court affirmed and remanded for an order compelling arbitration, expressed no opinion on the later visit, and decided nothing about the release of liability or the injury claim. For a Texas family, this means a form signed on an earlier visit may put questions about later visits before an arbitrator.

The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal, in Case No. 5D2024-1487, decided July 11, 2025, held that an adult patron's agreement covered "use of any portion of the Premises," not only the listed activities. The claim had "a significant relationship" to the agreement and must be arbitrated (opinion). The court reversed and remanded for an order compelling arbitration, deciding nothing about the release or the claim's merit. For a Florida patron, this means an injury away from the trampolines may still fall within the arbitration clause.

The Supreme Court of Missouri, in No. SC100512, opinion issued March 4, 2025, considered a release a parent signed for a minor. Its delegation clause, covering "scope, arbitrability, or validity," was not specifically challenged, so challenges to the signer's authority and to whether the release reached beyond the day it was signed went to the arbitrator (opinion). The Court vacated the order refusing arbitration and remanded for an order compelling it. It wrote that nothing in the opinion "should be taken as suggesting how the arbitrator should rule." For a Missouri family, this means arguments about the form may be decided by an arbitrator.

Taken together, these decisions show that the state where the park sits, and who signed, can change where a claim is heard. A reader may compare the facts of their own visit against the closest of these rulings and raise that comparison with an attorney.

When a Parent Signs for a Minor: What the Document Does and Does Not Decide

A parent who clicked "agree" for a child, or a young adult who signed as a teenager, faces a different question than an adult who signed for themselves. Contracts with minors raise questions about capacity, meaning whether a person has the legal power to be bound.

One tool is disaffirmance: a minor's legal right to undo a contract the minor entered, usually exercised at or after reaching adulthood. The West Virginia court stated that "[c]ontracts by minors are generally not void, but voidable only, and may be ratified or disaffirmed after majority." That is West Virginia's rule, applied to a minor who signed himself.

When a parent signs, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a parent could not bind a minor to the arbitration provision, explaining that its focus was on "the deprivation of the judicial protections for minors that would result if minors were bound to agreements to arbitrate." The Missouri Supreme Court, by contrast, did not decide the parent's authority; because of the delegation clause, it sent that question to the arbitrator. Whether a parent's signature binds a child is a state-law question with no uniform national answer.

The arbitration and release questions stay separate here too. The Pennsylvania Court said the release arguments were "outside of the scope of this appeal." For a family, a ruling about where a child's claim is heard is not the last word on whether the release reaches it. A family in this position may confirm who actually signed, whether the child signed, and the child's age then, and an attorney can help apply that state's rule to those facts.

What State Injury Law Still Decides After the Waiver Question

Even after every question about the document is answered, the injury claim itself is governed by state tort law, the law of civil wrongs. For an injured person, that means the waiver question is only the first layer.

Depending on what happened, a claim might rest on premises liability, the duty a property owner or operator owes to people it invites onto its property, including keeping the space reasonably safe. If staff such as court monitors were not watching with reasonable care, it might be negligent supervision. If a trampoline, a pad or a foam pit structure was defective and caused harm, it might be product liability.

Whatever the theory, the claim turns on whether there was a duty, whether it was breached, whether the breach caused the injury, and what damages followed. An injury does not prove anyone's fault, and an accident does not prove a defect, so what the facts show matters.

Three state rules also shape the claim. A statute of limitations is the deadline set by law for filing a lawsuit, and when it starts to run and what exceptions apply vary. Comparative fault weighs the injured person's own share of responsibility, if any, against the defendant's; contributory fault is a stricter variant some states use. Damages rules decide what kinds of losses the law may allow. All three differ by state and apply whether or not a waiver is enforced. California's rules, as one example, are described on the page about California trampoline accident law. Someone weighing a claim may note the injury date and which theory fits the facts, and an attorney can help identify the state's deadline and fault rule.

Records That Often Matter in a Trampoline Park Injury Case

When a family is still in the middle of treatment, paperwork can feel like the last thing on anyone's mind. Yet the records that exist can affect what a claim is able to show about duty, breach, causation and damages.

If you were hurt, the records that usually matter include the medical records that document the injury and the treatment that followed, and photos or video of the equipment, the padding or the area where the injury happened.

The signed agreement often matters a great deal. Injured people and families often keep a copy of the waiver or participation agreement, or the confirmation of an online signature, because its exact words, its date and the name of the person who signed can shape every question on this page.

An incident report the park prepared is another common record; it records what someone wrote down at the time and does not by itself establish what caused an injury. The names and contact information of witnesses, such as other patrons, parents or staff, also tend to matter, since they may remember how the area was supervised and what happened.

Questions Worth Asking Before Deciding How to Proceed

The questions below tend to decide how a trampoline park injury claim unfolds. The answers can determine whether a claim is heard in court or arbitration, whether a release reaches it, and how long remains to bring it.

Which state's law governs? The state where the park sits often matters, and agreements may name a state's law. In the Pennsylvania case, the agreement named Pennsylvania law.

Is the waiver's language clear and unambiguous about this type of claim, and does it reach the area, the activity and the visit where the injury happened?

Was the injured person a minor, and who signed: the minor, one parent, or no one at all? States answer these questions differently.

Does the agreement contain an arbitration clause and, if so, a delegation clause? Some agreements also try to change the time to bring a claim. The Pennsylvania agreement, for example, said claims "SHALL BE BROUGHT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF ITS ACCRUAL"; the Court did not decide whether that term was valid, because its ruling made that unnecessary.

Does the claim involve allegations of gross negligence or reckless conduct, which some states treat differently from ordinary negligence?

And what is the limitation period in the relevant state, when did it begin to run, and does any exception apply? Only that state's law answers it.

These are the kinds of questions a conversation with our attorney can help a person or family sort through, with the agreement and the dates in hand. If that would help, you can request a case evaluation.