 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cooper v. Aspen Skiing Company6/24/2002
v. 1995) (stating in dicta that "a minor is not bound by a release executed by his parent"); Childress v. Madison County, 777 S.W.2d 1, 7 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989) (holding that mother could not execute a valid release or exculpatory clause on behalf of her minor son); Munoz v. II Jaz Inc., 963 S.W.2d 207, 209-10 (Tex. Ct. App. 1993) ("We hold that section 12.04(7) of the Family Code, which empowers a parent to make legal decisions concerning their child, does not give parents the power to waive a child's cause of action for personal injuries. Such an interpretation of the statute would be against the public policy to protect minor children."); see also Int'l Union, UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187, 213 (1991) (White, J., concurring) (stating the general rule that parents cannot waive causes of action on behalf of their children). But see Hohe v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 274 Cal. Rptr. 647, 649-50 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (holding that parent may contract for child and therefore release signed on child's behalf by parent is valid); cf., Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 696 N.E.2d 201, 207 (Ohio 1998) (holding that "parents have the authority to bind their minor children to exculpatory agreements in favor of volunteers and sponsors of nonprofit sports activities where the cause of action sounds in negligence"); Mohney v. USA Hockey, Inc., 77 F. Supp. 2d 859 (E.D. Ohio 1999) (applying Zivich holding and ruling that " othing in the Zivich opinion indicates that its holding should be limited to nonprofit sports organizations that are local in scope"), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, Mohney v. USA Hockey, Inc., 248 F.3d 1150 (6th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, in this case, Diane Cooper's execution of the release did not act as a release of the claims of her minor son David. B. PARENTAL INDEMNITY PROVISIONS
Finally, we consider the validity of parental indemnity provisions. As a practical matter, release and indemnity provisions in contracts signed by parents or guardians on behalf of their minor children go hand-in-hand: having invalidated release provisions, it would be contradictory to then effectively undercut a minor's rights to sue by allowing indemnity clauses that make such suits for all realistic purposes unlikely.
Thus, we agree with the reasoning of those courts invalidating parental indemnity provisions that a minor child would be unlikely to pursue claims if his parent or guardian served as the ultimate source of compensation for the negligent party's torts, and that - if the child did bring a cause of action - family discord would likely result. See Hawkins, 37 P.3d at 1067 (reasoning that "an indemnification from negligence that specifically makes a parent the ultimate source of compensation would likely result in inadequate compensation for the minor or family discord" and holding that parental indemnification provisions are invalid); see also, e.g., Valdimer v. Mount Verson Hebrew Camps, Inc., 172 N.E.2d 283, 285 (N.Y. 1961) (concluding that post-injury parental indemnification agreements thwart state's protective policy by discouraging infant to bring claim or creating family disharmony if infant elects to press his claim); Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mallison, 354 P.2d 800, 802-03 (Or. 1960) (in post-injury parental indemnification setting, reasoning that a child would be unlikely to pursue claims if agreement required parent to indemnify defendant).
Moreover, the effect of a parental indemnity agreement - to assure that a negligent party will not be held financially responsible for that party's torts committed against a minor - undermines a parent's duty to protect the best interests of the child. Thus, we also agree with the Utah Supreme C
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|