You Know Those Releases Parents Sign for Their Kids? Well They are Probably not Enforceable

This is something mom never told you. I remember over 20 years ago, in law school, in another state (Colorado), learning how those releases of liability you sometimes sign are not enforceable for various reasons.

The Michigan Court of Appeals just held, in an opinion that will be published (as in formally published in a court reporter book -- opinions which aren't published are actually "published" but only informally. Unpublished opinions are not supposed to be precedential however they are used all the time to make arguments), that a release parents signed on behalf of their child was not necessarily binding. It involved a kid jumping off a slide and breaking his leg, after properly using the slide 5 times. This was for a child's 5th birthday party. The facility stated it would have supervision and that the facilities were safe. Yet they had parents sign a release. The trial court had held against the parent and dismissed the case. But the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed and remanded back to the trial court.

OK, now I have to find a way to connect this to the theme of my blog. It's this. Who gets to author the child? Who can bind the child? In this case, the Michigan Court said basically that a parent has no authority simply by virtue of the parental relation to waive the child's claims. This is really interesting and I always have kept it in the back of my mind when I sign all those many, many releases I sign for school and sporting events. The releases might not be enforceable. The case also raises issues of violating the Michigan Consumer Protection Act because the party provider misrepresented what it was selling, possibly. The Michigan Consumer Protection Act is really useful. I almost think I should teach it in FYW because I know my students tell tales all the time of how they were ripped off and I'm always seeing violations of the MCPA.

One of my students wasn't hired for a day care job because she wore hearing aids. Clearly this was a violation of the Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/act_453_elliott_larsen_8772_7.pdf

My point is, as stated in my dissertation, the law has questionable agency. Some of the consumer protection laws, and laws that protect civil rights, I really think the average citizen would benefit from being pretty familiar with them. And if you're someone who drafts releases or contracts, well, there's some ethical as well as legal issues to think about.

The liability case is here: http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2008/081208/40179.pdf