Trampoline Park Arbitration Clauses: What They Are and What Courts Have Decided

What an Arbitration Clause Is and What It Does

An arbitration clause is a contract term that requires disputes to be decided by a private arbitrator rather than by a judge or a jury. The arbitrator hears the evidence and issues a decision called an award. The agreements in these cases said that a court could later enter judgment on that award, and named the organization that would run the arbitration.

Trampoline parks usually ask guests to accept a participation agreement, sometimes called a release agreement or simply a release, before they enter. One document often holds two different things. The first is a release of liability, which tries to give up the right to hold the park responsible for injuries. The second is the arbitration clause, which governs where any dispute is heard. Courts treat these as separate provisions, and a court can rule on one without ruling on the other.

Many of these clauses also contain a delegation clause: a provision that sends questions about the arbitration clause itself, such as its scope, validity or enforceability, to the arbitrator instead of a court. Two of the agreements quoted by the courts below sent disputes over "the scope, arbitrability, or validity" of the arbitration agreement to arbitration.

The stake is practical. If the clause is enforced, the injury claim is heard in private arbitration. If it is not, the claim may go forward in court. If you are looking at an agreement now, a first step is often simply finding the full text and noting whether it contains a release, an arbitration clause and a delegation clause, since each raises a different question. The broader questions about what a release does are covered in our page on trampoline park waivers and injury claims.

If Your Family Signed a Park Agreement: How Courts Have Ruled, State by State

Six state courts have addressed arbitration terms in trampoline park agreements. Each applied its own state's law, and none is a federal ruling. For someone in this position, the closest match on who signed and what the agreement said may say more than any headline about the outcome.

Pennsylvania. In a decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Nos. 24 EAP 2023 and 25 EAP 2023, decided September 25, 2025, one parent had signed a participation agreement for a minor. The Court held the arbitration provision was not enforceable against the injured minor or the parent who did not sign, finding that "parents are without authority to bind a minor child to an agreement to arbitrate." The Court said the issue it accepted "concerns the enforceability of the arbitration provision only," leaving the release provisions outside the appeal. Two Justices concurred in part and dissented in part.

West Virginia came first. A memorandum decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, No. 20-0344, filed February 19, 2021, involved a release that, under the park's rules, a minor's parent or guardian had to sign. Citing the West Virginia rule that contracts by minors "may be ratified or disaffirmed after majority," the Court held he could disaffirm the release, its arbitration clause and its delegation provision on reaching adulthood, and found no error in the ruling that there was no valid, enforceable arbitration agreement.

In New Jersey, the Appellate Division, Docket No. A-1861-20, decided May 16, 2022 and approved for publication, held that an adult who signed the agreement himself must arbitrate his own injury claims. The court called the clause's language "a clear and unambiguous waiver" of his right to a jury trial.

Texas turned on a later visit. In the Supreme Court of Texas, No. 24-0273, opinion delivered May 23, 2025, a parent signed a release on a first visit. Because the delegation clause covered "the scope, arbitrability, or validity" of the arbitration agreement, whether the release also covered a later visit was a scope question for an arbitrator. The Court affirmed and remanded for an order compelling arbitration, and expressly stated no opinion on whether the release covered the later visit.

Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal, Case No. 5D2024-1487, decided July 11, 2025, considered an agreement an adult accepted that covered "use of any portion of the Premises," not only listed activities. It held there was "a significant relationship" between the claim and the agreement, reversed, and remanded for an order compelling arbitration. The opinion notes it is not final until any timely, authorized rehearing motion is resolved.

Missouri also turned on delegation. In the Supreme Court of Missouri, No. SC100512, opinion issued March 4, 2025, a parent signed a release for a minor. Because the delegation clause was not specifically challenged, the challenges to the signer's authority and to whether the release reached beyond the day it was signed went to the arbitrator. The Court vacated the order refusing arbitration and remanded for an order compelling it, writing that nothing in its opinion suggests how the arbitrator should rule.

None of these rulings found that any park caused an injury, was at fault or broke a law. A useful question to ask next is which of these fact patterns, if any, resembles your own: who signed, for whom, and on which visit.

What the Decisions Show: Patterns and Limits

Read together, the six decisions turn on two facts more than any others: who signed, and whether a delegation clause was in play. For a family, those two facts can decide whether a judge or an arbitrator hears the case.

When the injured person was a minor, courts in Pennsylvania and West Virginia declined to enforce the arbitration clause, but for different reasons. Pennsylvania held that a parent cannot bind a minor to arbitrate. West Virginia held that a minor who signed for himself could disaffirm, meaning cancel, the contract after reaching majority. So if a child was hurt, the route to court in those states depended on whether a parent or the child had signed.

When an adult signed for himself or herself, courts in New Jersey and Florida enforced the clause and sent the injury claims to arbitration. An injured adult who signed may face a stronger argument for arbitration.

When a delegation clause was present and not specifically challenged, courts in Texas and Missouri did not decide the threshold questions at all. In practice, a delegation clause moves the first question, "does this arbitration clause apply here?", from a judge to an arbitrator, unless the delegation clause itself is specifically challenged. The West Virginia decision shows the other side: there, the family "promptly challenged the validity, revocability, and enforceability of the delegation provision itself," and the Court found no error. That contrast suggests the way a challenge is framed can matter as much as the challenge itself.

The Missouri case involved a parent signing for a minor, much like Pennsylvania, yet came out differently because of how the delegation clause was handled. These are patterns from six decisions in six states, not rules for the country, and a decision in one state does not settle the question in another. Someone weighing their options may want to note whether their agreement has a delegation clause and which state's law it names.

Why State Law Governs, and Why Your State's Rules Matter

Arbitration agreements sit where federal and state law meet. The Pennsylvania agreement, for example, stated that any arbitration under it "shall be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act," while choosing Pennsylvania law for everything else. Yet in every one of these cases, the question of whether a valid agreement existed, and who it bound, was decided by a state court applying state contract principles. What that means for a reader is that the state where the park is, and the law the agreement chooses, can shape the answer.

Those principles differ, and the difference can change where a family's case is heard. In West Virginia, a minor's ability to disaffirm a contract after reaching majority opened the door to court; in Pennsylvania, the limits on one parent's authority to bind a minor child, or a parent who did not sign, did the same. If you are in another state, its own rules on minors and parental signatures are the ones that apply.

Each state also has its own way of deciding whether an injury claim falls within an arbitration clause, which affects how a court reads your agreement. Florida's court asked whether a valid written agreement exists, whether an arbitrable issue exists, and whether the right to arbitrate was waived. West Virginia's court described its statute as limiting the trial court to whether a valid agreement exists and whether the dispute falls within its scope.

The words of your agreement can matter just as much. Florida's court relied on language reaching "any portion of the Premises," not just the listed activities, so an injury away from the trampolines was still covered. Some clauses carry terms that could affect a claim directly: the Pennsylvania and New Jersey clauses required claims to be brought within one year of accrual (New Jersey's version applied that to adults and gave minors the applicable statute of limitations), and the Missouri clause stated that the arbitrator "shall have no authority to award punitive or exemplary damages." The Pennsylvania Court said its ruling made it unnecessary to address the shortened period. Reading an agreement for any shortened filing period is one practical thing to weigh early.

Limitation periods, fault rules and damages rules also differ by state, which is why state pages such as Florida trampoline accident law and Missouri trampoline accident law treat each separately.

What a Ruling on Arbitration Does and Does Not Decide

If you have seen a headline that a court "sided with" a trampoline park or with a family, the headline often says more than the ruling did. A court order compelling arbitration decides the forum, meaning where the dispute is heard. It does not decide whether the park was at fault, whether the release of liability bars the claim, or what the claim is worth.

The reverse holds too. A ruling that an arbitration clause is unenforceable means the case may proceed in court. It does not decide whether the injury claim succeeds. The claim itself still turns on what the law of that state asks, such as a duty, a breach of that duty, causation and damages, and on the facts. Our page on the trampoline park injury claim walks through those elements.

The release and the arbitration clause stay separate questions. The Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida and Missouri courts each limited their rulings to arbitration and left the release, and the merits, undecided. Pennsylvania's Court said the release arguments were "outside of the scope of this appeal." Texas expressed "no opinion" on whether the release covered the later visit. West Virginia's ruling rested on disaffirmance of the release as a whole, including its arbitration terms, and still decided nothing about fault.

For a family, this means an arbitration ruling, either way, is not the end of the claim. The questions that remain, about fault, the release and the injuries, are the ones a person may weigh next, often with an attorney who has read the specific agreement.

Questions Worth Asking Before Accepting That Arbitration Is Required

The six decisions point to a short set of questions that have decided outcomes. They are described here as what courts examined, not as steps anyone must take.

The first is who signed. Courts distinguished between an injured adult who signed for himself, a parent who signed for a child, and a minor who signed alone. Pennsylvania also addressed a parent who did not sign at all.

The second is age. Whether the injured person was a minor when the agreement was signed, and when the injury happened, shaped both the Pennsylvania and West Virginia results.

The third is delegation. Whether the agreement contains a delegation clause, and whether that clause was specifically challenged, decided who answered the threshold questions in Texas, Missouri and West Virginia.

The fourth is coverage. Florida's court looked at whether the agreement's language reached the place on the premises where the injury occurred, not only the listed activities.

The fifth is timing. Texas and Missouri both involved arguments about whether an agreement signed on one day reached a later visit, a question both courts left to the arbitrator.

If you were hurt, or your child was, the documents that usually matter here include the agreement as it was presented, any confirmation email or account record showing who accepted it and when, the dates of each visit, medical records, and incident reports. Families often find these questions easier to sort through in conversation; a case evaluation with our attorney can cover which of these questions an agreement raises.