Santiago v. Philly Trampoline Park, LLC, i/p/a Sky Zone, d/b/a Sky Zone Trampoline Park d/b/a Sky Zone Philadelphia, Sky Zone Philadelphia, Inc., Sky Zone Trampoline Park a/k/a Sky Zone Philadelphia, consolidated with Shultz v. Sky Zone, LLC

Summary

This is a concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice Brobson of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in consolidated appeals involving arbitration provisions in trampoline-park participation agreements. Justice Brobson agrees that the arbitration provision is unenforceable against claims brought by non-signing parents but disagrees with the majority's conclusion that parents may not bind their minor children to arbitration. He reasons that arbitration concerns the forum and procedure for resolving claims rather than the minors' substantive rights.

Holdings

1. The dissent would hold that parents may bind their minor child to arbitration because arbitration selects the forum and procedure for resolving the child's claims and does not affect the child's substantive rights.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a parent or natural guardian may bind a minor child to an arbitration agreement concerning the child's claims.
2. Whether an arbitration provision changes or forfeits a minor's substantive cause of action, rather than merely selecting the forum and procedure for adjudicating that cause of action.

Disposition

other