Amusement centers and parks are increasingly requiring visitors to sign liability waivers and releases before entering and using their facilities. Often, a patron must sign a new release each time they visit. But what happens if a patron gets injured during one visit and for whatever reason the Release from that visit doesn’t apply? Maybe, the day of that visit, the Release was forgotten and never signed. Maybe a Court declared the Release the day of that visit unenforceable. Would the Release from one of the prior visits apply?
This issue recently arose in Karlin v. UATP Springfield, LLC, Case No. SD37699, 2024 Mo. App. LEXIS 87 (Mo. App. S.D. Feb. 24, 2024), a Missouri Court of Appeals case. Karlin made multiple visits to a trampoline park, each while they were a minor. During one such visit, Karlin was injured. Four Release documents were signed across Karlin’s various visits, three by someone who purported to be Karlin’s “Parent/Guardian” and one by Karlin’s mother. Karlin’s mother did not sign any Release on the visit during which Karlin was injured.
The sole issue was whether the prior visit Release containing an arbitration clause, signed by Karlin’s mother, applied to the injury claims Karlin asserted for the subsequent visit. The Release did not specify the length of time it was to be effective and binding, so the Court held it must look to the surrounding circumstances to ascertain the parties’ intent.
Karlin highlighted that (1) the Release specified it was to be executed as consideration for permitting the patron to enter the Premises and use the facilities; and (2) a new release was required on each subsequent visit. These two facts, Karlin held, signaled an intent that the Release and arbitration provision were only intended to apply to any claims “on the date the release is signed.” Because the only release signed by Karlin’s mother was not signed the date of Karlin’s injury, that Release and arbitration clause did not apply to Karlin’s personal injury claims.
That this issue arose in the context of a motion to compel arbitration, as the Release contained an arbitration clause, warrants extra attention given the potential for Karlin to impact not just applicability of Releases but also Arbitration Agreements.