Opinion ID: 831187
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: parental preinjury waivers

Text: The justices in the majority assert that under existing Michigan common law, a preinjury release signed by a parent waiving a child's negligence claim in order to enable that child to participate in a sporting or recreational activity is unenforceable. However, they do not cite a single Michigan case holding that a preinjury parental waiver is unenforceable. [20] Instead, they only cite cases involving parental waivers of existing claims. Until today, Michigan's common-law rule against parental waivers has only been applied to the latter claims. I would not, as do the justices comprising the majority, extend our common-law rule against postinjury parental waivers to preinjury parental waivers. These waivers are very different. The trial court held that the preinjury waiver here was enforceable, specifically noting the absence of any Michigan case which says that a parent who signs a waiver like this one prior to a child engaging in an activity is engaging in an act which is a legal nullity. Similarly, Judge BANDSTRA correctly stated, There is no Michigan precedent explicitly discussing whether the postinjury rule against parental waivers should apply in a preinjury case. Woodman, 280 Mich.App. at 157, 760 N.W.2d 641 (BANDSTRA, P.J., concurring). And Judge SCHUETTE also correctly remarked upon the dearth of preinjury, parental-waiver-of-liability cases in Michigan.... Id. at 163, 760 N.W.2d 641 (SCHUETTE, J., concurring). If the justices who make up the majority are correct that current Michigan common law precludes the enforcement of preinjury parental waivers, then the lack of any earlier decision actually stating this proposition is, to say the least, noteworthy, especially given that such waivers have been commonplace in this state and our country for decades. The lead opinion rightly states, The underlying facts are simple and likely familiar to many parents with young children. Ante at 3 (emphasis added). Doubtless, the facts are likely familiar precisely because generations of parents have routinely been confronted with such waivers as a condition to their children's participation in sporting and recreational activities. As Judge SCHUETTE observed: [A]n immense amount of youth activitieschurch groups, Boy Scouts, sports camps of all kinds, orchestra and theatrical events, and countless school functionsrun and operate on release and waiver-of-liability forms for minor children. Id. at 163-164, 760 N.W.2d 641 (SCHUETTE, J., concurring). In view, therefore, of the facts that (1) preinjury parental waivers have been ubiquitous in this state for decades, enabling children to participate in a wide array of sporting and recreational activities that might otherwise not be available, and (2) there is no Michigan case that has ever held that a parental preinjury waiver is unenforceable, or otherwise prohibited or contrary to public policy, what exactly is the basis for the confident assertion by a majority of justices that such waivers are unenforceable in this state? The lead opinion correctly observes that in McKinstry v. Valley Obstetrics-Gynecology Clinic, P.C., 428 Mich. 167, 192-193, 405 N.W.2d 88 (1987), this Court set forth the common-law rule that a parent has no authority to waive, release, or compromise claims by or against a child. This statement, however, was made in the course of an opinion that held that a particular statute created an exception to this common-law rule, and the cases cited in McKinstry in support of this rule all involved existing claims. McKinstry did not assert that the common-law rule applies to preinjury parental waivers, and it did not hold that such waivers are unenforceable. To make the point as clearly as possible, until the instant Court of Appeals decision, no existing Michigan case had held that the rule barring parental waivers applied in the preinjury context, and none had applied the rule in such a context, notwithstanding the familiarity of such waivers in this state. Thus, the precise question before this Court is genuinely an issue of first impression in this state.