The Michigan Supreme Court issued it’s opinion in the closely watched Woodman v. Kera case. It was a much needed victory for accident victims. The case involved a parent who signed a pre-injury liability waiver prior to his son using an inflatable play equipment, or Bouncer. In this case, Trent Woodman’s father signed such a waiver on his son’s behalf. While Trent used the Bouncer, he fell off a slide and broke his leg. The parent’s sued the defendant company who operated the Bouncer, alleging negligence.

The Court held that under Michigan common law, a parent cannot bind a child through a contract. The decision means the owner of the Bouncer can be sued for negligence, upholding a 2008 ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals. This decision is important. The Court upheld literally a century-old Michigan common law rule that a minor lacks capacity to contract, and thus in turn, a parent cannot bind his or her child to such a contract.

In making this ruling, the Court looked at prior rulings from as far back as 1874. In fact, in its decision the Court quoted one of Michigan’s foremost and important judges, Justice Thomas Cooley (namesake of Cooley Law School), who wrote in 1886:

“The natural guardian has no power to admit away the rights of the ward whose person is committed to his custody. He is guardian of the person only, having no control of any estate the ward may possess, and could not be given a control except on judicial proceedings and after giving security for responsible care. This being so, it cannot be plausibly claimed that by an irresponsible admission he may deprive his ward of important rights. A right of action is as much property as is a corporeal possession,; much less, therefore, and, in the case of a minor, is protected by the law in the same way and under the same securities. The mother could not release it even for full consideration and by the most formal instrument could she, by mere word of mouth, when not under oath, or otherwise chargeable with responsibility, destroy his right of action by her admissions.”

Simply put, children have no authority to enter into contracts, such as a standard waiver form, therefore they cannot be subject to the contents of such a waiver. This rule is utilized by almost all, if not all 50 states.

Unfortunately two Court justices disagreed with 125 years of Michigan jurisprudence. Both Justice Maura Corrigan and Stephen Markman wish to disregard Michigan common law and hold that children are bound by such contracts. Because these two justices almost never side with accident victims, no matter the context, their decision is not at all surprising.

They make the usual arguments, arguing if such waivers are not upheld, businesses will surely face more lawsuits causing them to go out of business and the world will end. However, these waivers have never been enforceable and last time I checked, business were still opening up their stores every day. As Justice Diane Hathaway aptly stated in her concurrence – “The historic rule is a sensible, logical, and well reasoned approach that places greater emphasis on the protection of minor children than on hypothetical business concerns that have not materialized in this or any other state has chosen to follow it.”

Woodman v. Kera is a good win for accident victims, and in particular children, who were at risk in losing 125 years of common law protection.