Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » Michigan » Supreme Court » 2010 » SHEILA WOODMAN V KERA LLC
SHEILA WOODMAN V KERA LLC
State: Michigan
Court: Supreme Court
Docket No: 137347
Case Date: 06/18/2010
Preview:Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Opinion
SUPREME COURT TRENT WOODMAN, a Minor, by his Next Friend, SHEILA WOODMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v KERA LLC, doing business as BOUNCE PARTY, Defendant-Appellant.

Chief Justice:

Justices:

Marilyn Kelly

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman Diane M. Hathaway

FILED JUNE 18, 2010 STATE OF MICHIGAN

No. 137347

BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH YOUNG, J. I believe this Court must determine whether a preinjury liability waiver signed by a parent on behalf of his child is enforceable under the common law and, if not, whether this Court should change the common law to enforce such a waiver. I would hold that a parental preinjury waiver is unenforceable under Michigan's common law because, absent special circumstances, a parent has no authority to bind his child by contract. I would further decline to change the common law rule.

While this Court unquestionably has the authority to modify the common law,1 such modifications should be made with the utmost caution because it is difficult for the judiciary to assess the competing interests that may be at stake and the societal trade-offs relevant to one modification of the common law versus another in relation to the existing rule. Ironically, defendant has consistently denied that the common law explicitly precluded use of parental preinjury waivers. As a result, defendant has never advocated a specific change in the common law, much less provided the Court with any analytic framework concerning such an alternative rule or any meaningful assessment of possible consequences that might attend a change in the existing rule. Particularly in light of the historic duration of the common law rule generally precluding parental waivers, and because the proponent requiring the change has essentially failed to provide any critical argument and analysis in support of the change, I would decline to alter the existing rule.2

Const 1963, art 3,
Download SHEILA WOODMAN V KERA LLC.pdf

Michigan Law

Michigan State Laws
Michigan Court
Michigan Tax
Michigan Labor Laws
Michigan State
    > Michigan Counties
    > Michigan Zip Codes
Michigan Agencies

Comments

Tips