Liability waivers for minors: can a parent sign away a child's claim?

Sometimes. A parent's signature on a liability waiver binds the child's own injury claim in California, does not bind it in Texas, New York or Virginia, and binds it in Florida only for the inherent risks of the activity and only on a form that carries a statutory notice. In every state the signature still does useful work, so you should collect it, but you should know exactly what it buys you before you rely on it. This guide is general information, not legal advice; have a licensed attorney in your state review your form.

Why minors are different

Three ideas sit behind every minor-waiver case. First, capacity: as a general rule in most states, a contract entered by a minor is voidable, which is why the Legal Information Institute describes a presumption that a minor lacked capacity to contract. California puts it in a statute: under Family Code section 6710 a minor's contract "may be disaffirmed by the minor before majority or within a reasonable time afterwards." A release signed only by a child is fragile everywhere.

Second, the right to disaffirm belongs to the child, so the real question is whether a parent can give away what the child could not. States answer differently.

Third, courts treat a child's injury claim as an asset the court itself protects. New York's CPLR 1207 requires a court order to settle an infant's claim; Virginia's Code section 8.01-424 has the court approve compromises for minors; Florida's section 744.301(2) caps what a natural guardian may settle without court involvement at $15,000. If a parent cannot settle a claim after an injury without a judge, a parent should not be able to extinguish it beforehand. That is the logic of Valdimer in New York and Kirton in Florida.

The three positions states take

The parent can bind the child

California is the clearest example of the group, and the one with the most case law behind it. In Hohe v. San Diego Unified School District, a student was hurt at a school hypnotism show after she and her father signed releases; the court refused to apply them only because the wording never mentioned negligence, not because of her age. Eriksson v. Nunnink restates the rule directly: "courts have held that the right to disaffirm a minor's contract does not extend to a release of liability signed by a parent on behalf of the minor." There a 17-year-old rider and her mother had signed, so the release "could not be disaffirmed," and it barred the parents' wrongful-death claims unless the trainer was grossly negligent. Platzer v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area enforced a mother's release after her eight-year-old fell from a chairlift during a ski lesson. Two limits remain: City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, where a mother had signed for a 14-year-old who drowned at a city camp, holds that a release of future gross negligence is unenforceable, and the California Supreme Court has never squarely ruled on parental pre-injury waivers, so the position rests on Court of Appeal decisions.

The parent cannot bind the child

Texas, New York and Virginia land here for different reasons. In Texas, Munoz v. II Jaz Inc. involved a nine-year-old hurt on an amusement ride after her parents signed a waiver; the court held that the Family Code right to make decisions of substantial legal significance (now section 151.001(a)(7)) does not let parents waive a child's personal-injury claim. In Paz v. Life Time Fitness a federal court, relying on Munoz, predicted that Texas would not enforce a mother's release of a commercial day camp. The Texas Supreme Court has not decided the point, and Paz is a prediction rather than binding state law.

In New York, the Court of Appeals in Valdimer refused to enforce a parent's release and indemnity of a camp-injury claim because it would sidestep court approval, and "a parent who has placed himself in the position of indemnitor will be a dubious champion of his infant child's rights." Alexander v. Kendall Central School District states the modern rule flatly: a minor is not bound by a release executed by his parent. Separately, General Obligations Law 5-326 voids negligence releases from fee-charging pools, gyms and places of amusement or recreation for signers of any age.

Virginia gets there by a different road. Hiett v. Lake Barcroft Community Association holds that every pre-injury release of negligence causing personal injury is void as against public policy, a rule the court traced back to 1890. If an adult's own release is void, a parent's release of a child's claim cannot fare better; no Virginia appellate case has needed to say so. The equine statute, Code section 3.2-6202, does refer to a parent or guardian who has knowingly executed a waiver, and how that sits with Hiett is untested.

Limited by statute

Florida shows what happens when a legislature answers a court. In Kirton v. Fields a father signed a release so his 14-year-old could ride an ATV at a motorsports park; the boy died, and the Florida Supreme Court held that "a parent does not have the authority to execute a pre-injury release on behalf of a minor child when the release involves participation in a commercial activity." The Legislature answered with section 744.301(3), which lets a natural guardian waive, in advance, claims against a commercial activity provider for injury, death or property damage "resulting from an inherent risk in the activity." Inherent risks include the provider's failure to warn and the negligence of the child or another participant, but a participant "does not include the activity provider or its owners, affiliates, employees, or agents," so the provider's own negligence stays outside the waiver. The form must carry this notice in uppercase type at least 5 points larger than, and clearly distinguishable from, the rest of the text:

NOTICE TO THE MINOR CHILD'S NATURAL GUARDIAN

READ THIS FORM COMPLETELY AND CAREFULLY. YOU ARE AGREEING TO LET YOUR MINOR CHILD ENGAGE IN A POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITY. YOU ARE AGREEING THAT, EVEN IF (name of released party or parties) USES REASONABLE CARE IN PROVIDING THIS ACTIVITY, THERE IS A CHANCE YOUR CHILD MAY BE SERIOUSLY INJURED OR KILLED BY PARTICIPATING IN THIS ACTIVITY BECAUSE THERE ARE CERTAIN DANGERS INHERENT IN THE ACTIVITY WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED OR ELIMINATED. BY SIGNING THIS FORM YOU ARE GIVING UP YOUR CHILD'S RIGHT AND YOUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM (name of released party or parties) IN A LAWSUIT FOR ANY PERSONAL INJURY, INCLUDING DEATH, TO YOUR CHILD OR ANY PROPERTY DAMAGE THAT RESULTS FROM THE RISKS THAT ARE A NATURAL PART OF THE ACTIVITY. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO SIGN THIS FORM, AND (name of released party or parties) HAS THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO LET YOUR CHILD PARTICIPATE IF YOU DO NOT SIGN THIS FORM.

A compliant waiver that waives no more than the statute allows earns a rebuttable presumption that it is valid and that the injury arose from an inherent risk. Kirton reserved the question of school, community and nonprofit activities, and subsection (3)(d) leaves those to the common law.

State by state

Every state and the District of Columbia has now been researched, and the table below carries all fifty-one rows. The answers fall into four groups. Five jurisdictions let a parent's signature bind the child: California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico and Ohio. Nine allow it but only within a statutory or activity-specific limit: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, North Dakota and Rhode Island. Fifteen hold that a parent cannot waive the child's own claim: Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. The remaining twenty-two are unsettled: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming.

The limited group is limited in nine different ways, which is why it repays reading row by row. Colorado and Alaska are the two states whose legislatures authorised parental releases outright, Colorado after its supreme court had refused to enforce one. Florida allows a waiver only of the inherent risks of the activity and only on a form carrying the statutory notice in oversized uppercase type. Arizona's permission exists only in the equine setting, where the statutory immunity itself turns on a parent's signature. Michigan confines it to recreation sponsored by a nonprofit, and never to the organiser's own negligence. Rhode Island has a statute that validates a parent's release up to a dollar cap, which reads as a rule about settling a claim rather than about releasing one before an injury, and it has never been tested as a pre-injury waiver. New Mexico's position rests on a divided Court of Appeals that the state supreme court has not reviewed. North Dakota's result came out of a case in which the authority question was never argued at all.

Two of the states in the "no" column reach that answer almost incidentally. Virginia voids every pre-injury release of a negligence claim for personal injury, and Hawaii limits what a recreational provider may release of its own negligence, so in both the parental question is nearly academic: the release fails whoever signs it.

State	Can a parent waive the child's claim?	Leading authority	State page
California	Yes, for ordinary negligence in recreation; never gross negligence	Hohe; Eriksson v. Nunnink; Platzer	California liability waiver
Texas	No, per the leading appellate decision; the Texas Supreme Court has not ruled	Munoz v. II Jaz; Paz v. Life Time Fitness	Texas liability waiver
Florida	Only inherent risks, only against a commercial provider, only with the statutory notice	Kirton v. Fields; Fla. Stat. 744.301(3)	Florida liability waiver
New York	No; and fee-charging recreational venues cannot release negligence at all	Valdimer; Alexander; GOL 5-326	New York liability waiver
Virginia	No, because every pre-injury personal-injury release is void	Hiett v. Lake Barcroft	Virginia liability waiver
Ohio	Yes, for volunteers and sponsors of nonprofit sport; the commercial reach is untested	Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club; Campagna-McGuffin	Ohio liability waiver
Massachusetts	Yes, for a voluntary, nonessential activity; compelled or essential services reserved	Sharon v. City of Newton	Massachusetts liability waiver
Colorado	Yes, for ordinary negligence by statute; never wilful and wanton, reckless or grossly negligent acts	C.R.S. 13-22-107, which overruled Cooper v. Aspen Skiing	Colorado liability waiver
Arizona	Only in the equine setting, where the statute makes immunity depend on a parent's signature	A.R.S. 12-553(A)(2); Bothell; Lindsay	Arizona liability waiver
Michigan	Only for nonprofit-sponsored recreation, only inherent risks, never the organiser's own negligence	Woodman v. Kera; MCL 700.5109	Michigan liability waiver
Illinois	No; a parent cannot compromise a child's claim, so a pre-injury release fails too	Meyer v. Naperville Manner	Illinois liability waiver
Pennsylvania	No; the parent's signature releases the parent's own claims only	Shaner v. State System of Higher Education	Pennsylvania liability waiver
New Jersey	No at a commercial recreational facility, though a parent may bind a child to arbitration	Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park	New Jersey liability waiver
Washington	No; a parent has no legal authority to waive the child's own claim	Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort	Washington liability waiver
Tennessee	No; a parent can neither release nor indemnify away the child's claim	Childress v. Madison County; Blackwell v. Sky High Sports	Tennessee liability waiver
North Carolina	No state appellate ruling; a federal court predicted yes for a school programme and almost certainly no for a for-profit one	Kelly v. United States	North Carolina liability waiver
Georgia	Undecided; the one case that raised it declined to answer	Doe v. YWCA of Greater Atlanta; O.C.G.A. 29-3-3	Georgia liability waiver
Missouri	Undecided; a parent cannot settle a child's existing claim without court approval	RSMo 507.184	Missouri liability waiver
Maryland	Yes, including against a commercial business; the court declined to draw that line	BJ's Wholesale Club v. Rosen; Cts. & Jud. Proc. 6-405	Maryland liability waiver
Indiana	Undecided; the cases that raised it were decided on the wording of the form instead	Stowers v. Clinton Central School Corp.	Indiana liability waiver
Wisconsin	No decision has ever enforced one, and the leading attempt failed	Yauger v. Skiing Enterprises	Wisconsin liability waiver
Minnesota	Probably yes for ordinary negligence, but only the Court of Appeals has said so	Justice v. Marvel (Ct. App.); Minn. Stat. 604.055	Minnesota liability waiver
South Carolina	Unsettled; no appellate authority either way	none; S.C. Code Ann. 62-5-433 for settlements	South Carolina liability waiver
Alabama	Unsettled; note that majority is 19, not 18	none; Ala. Code 26-1-1; Large v. Hayes	Alabama liability waiver
Louisiana	No, because no one can waive a personal-injury claim in advance	La. Civ. Code art. 2004; Ramirez v. Fair Grounds	Louisiana liability waiver
Kentucky	No, at least against a for-profit commercial operator	Miller v. House of Boom Kentucky	Kentucky liability waiver
Oregon	Unsettled; no decision and no statute authorising it	none; ORS 126.725; ORS 12.160	Oregon liability waiver
Oklahoma	Unsettled; the question was raised and left unanswered	Greenfield v. CircusTrix	Oklahoma liability waiver
Connecticut	Unsettled, but an adult cannot waive their own claim either	Hanks v. Powder Ridge; Reardon v. Windswept Farm	Connecticut liability waiver
Utah	No, and the parent's indemnity promise fails with it	Hawkins v. Peart; Utah Code 78B-4-405(2)	Utah liability waiver
Iowa	No; a parental pre-injury release violates public policy	Galloway v. State	Iowa liability waiver
Nevada	Unsettled; no statute and no published decision	none; NRS 41.200; NRS 11.250	Nevada liability waiver
Arkansas	Unsettled; no reported decision on the point	none; Ark. Code Ann. 16-56-116	Arkansas liability waiver
Mississippi	Unsettled; tolling can run to age 21, not 18	Quinn v. Mississippi State University; Miss. Code Ann. 1-3-27	Mississippi liability waiver
Kansas	Unsettled; but a child's claim is capped at eight years from the injury	none; K.S.A. 60-515	Kansas liability waiver
New Mexico	Yes, for a recreational provider, on a divided Court of Appeals the Supreme Court has never reviewed	Peck v. G-Force Gymnastics	New Mexico liability waiver
Nebraska	Undecided; no Nebraska statute and no square holding	Sinu v. Concordia University (capacity never assigned as error)	Nebraska liability waiver
Idaho	Undecided; no Idaho statute and no appellate decision located	Idaho Code 5-230 tolling only	Idaho liability waiver
West Virginia	Undecided by the Supreme Court of Appeals; a federal court struck one that rested on a safety statute	Johnson v. New River Scenic Whitewater Tours	West Virginia liability waiver
Hawaii	Largely moot for recreation, since the provider cannot release its own negligence at all	HRS 663-1.54	Hawaii liability waiver
New Hampshire	Probably not, though no decision squarely holds it	Fabian: a parent cannot waive a minor's substantive rights	New Hampshire liability waiver
Maine	No, on the Law Court's own alternative ground	Doyle v. Bowdoin College, footnote 3	Maine liability waiver
Montana	Undecided; the recreational safe harbour says nothing about parents or minors	MCA 28-2-702 and 27-1-753	Montana liability waiver
Rhode Island	Limited and untested: a statute validates a parent's release up to a dollar cap, which presupposes a settlement	R.I. Gen. Laws 33-15.1-1(b)	Rhode Island liability waiver
Delaware	Undecided; the statutes speak only to capacity and to settling a claim	6 Del. C. 2705 and 2706; 12 Del. C. 3901(k)	Delaware liability waiver
South Dakota	Undecided; no statute and no appellate decision located	SDCL 15-2-22 tolling only	South Dakota liability waiver
North Dakota	In practice a parent's signature has defeated a child's claim, but the authority question was never argued	Kondrad v. Bismarck Park District	North Dakota liability waiver
Alaska	Yes, by statute, in a signed writing that names the activities clearly and conspicuously, and never for reckless or intentional misconduct	AS 09.65.292	Alaska liability waiver
Vermont	Undecided, and academic for a business open to the public, whose release is void anyway	Dalury v. S-K-I	Vermont liability waiver
Wyoming	Undecided; the Recreation Safety Act bars inherent-risk claims whatever the participant's age	Wyo. Stat. 1-1-123(d)	Wyoming liability waiver
Washington DC	Undecided; a judge must approve any settlement of a minor's action	D.C. Code 21-120; Super. Ct. Civ. R. 17(c)	Washington DC liability waiver

Where a row says unsettled or undecided, that is the honest state of the law and not a gap in the research: no appellate court in that state has answered the question and no statute does either. For a business planning across several states it is also the most common answer, so it deserves a plan rather than a shrug. Plan for the question going either way. Collect the guardian signature, because the parent's own claims, the consent and medical authorization, and the evidence of assumed risk do not depend on the answer; then price, insure and supervise as though the child's own claim will survive the form, because in the twenty-two unsettled states it may. If you operate in one state only, read its page and act on what it says. If you operate in several, build one process that satisfies the strictest of them, and use a minor waiver form that records each child's name and date of birth so you can tell later which rule applied to which participant.

What a parent's signature still does

Even where it cannot bind the child, a guardian's signature does real work.

• The parent's own claims. Parents often have claims of their own, such as medical expenses or wrongful death. Eriksson enforced a release against the parents' wrongful-death claims in California, and the Texas and New York pages note that a parent's signature may waive the parent's derivative claims if the drafting meets the state's test; that point is not separately verified in New York, so ask counsel.
• Evidence of assumption of risk. In Manchanda v. Hays Worldwide, a Virginia federal court held the release void under Hiett but still admitted parts of the documents as evidence of what the participant knew. A specific risk list acknowledged by the family supports an assumption-of-risk defence everywhere.
• Indemnity. The template's guardian clause asks the parent to indemnify the released parties against claims brought on behalf of the minor "to the extent the law allows." Valdimer shows New York will not enforce that against the child's interest, so treat it as a possible benefit rather than a plan.
• Medical authorization and consent to participate. Emergency treatment authorization, fitness confirmation, emergency contacts and consent to participate are all valuable, and none depends on release law.

How to run the guardian flow

Use a form built for families rather than an adult form with a child's name typed into the signer field. The minor and guardian template and the guardian and minor waiver service both separate the adult's details from each child's.

1. Confirm guardian identity. Ask for the signer's full name, relationship to the child and a statement of authority. The template's guardian clause begins "I am the parent or legal guardian of the minor participant named below and I have the legal authority to sign for them."
2. One form per family, each child named. Let one guardian sign once for several children, but require every child's full name and date of birth as separate entries so the record shows exactly who was covered.
3. Show the state-specific text. In Florida the uppercase notice must appear on the form at the required size, on a phone screen as much as on paper.
4. Explain the risks in words the child understands. The template asks the parent to confirm they have done so, which is only credible if your risk list is specific.
5. Re-sign at 18. Store the participant's date of birth, flag records where the participant has reached majority, and ask for a fresh adult signature at the next visit.
6. Retain until majority plus the limitation period. Limitation periods for minors are commonly paused during childhood. California's two-year period under CCP 335.1 does not run while the plaintiff is under 18 (CCP 352), so a claim can be filed until age 20. Texas is the same: two years under section 16.003, with the time under 18 excluded by section 16.001. New York's three years (CPLR 214) run from when the disability ends under CPLR 208, capped at ten years after accrual, so plan on age 21. Florida's negligence period is two years for claims accruing after March 24, 2023 (section 95.11(5)(a)) and Virginia's is two years (section 8.01-243(A)); ask counsel how minority affects those two, and when in doubt keep the record until the child is 21.

Mistakes to avoid

• Letting a coach, team parent or older sibling sign. Every authority above speaks of parents and natural guardians. A signature from anyone else proves nothing about the child and may not bind the signer either.
• A child signing an adult form. The minor can disaffirm it, and you will be explaining why an eleven-year-old was asked to release negligence claims.
• Treating a Florida waiver as a negligence release. It covers inherent risks only. A form that claims more, or omits the notice, loses the statutory presumption.
• Relying on the release instead of supervision and insurance. Texas A&M's commentary on Munoz puts it plainly: liability insurance remains the strongest protection whatever the waiver says. Kirton and City of Santa Barbara were supervision cases before they were waiver cases.
• Copying another state's form. Start from the liability waiver template, open the page for your state, read how to write a liability waiver, and have a local attorney review the result.