The North Carolina Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal from UA Adventure North, LLC, the operator of Urban Air Trampoline and Adventure Park, regarding a motion to compel arbitration in a negligence lawsuit. This decision stems from a case involving Travis Allen McKinney, who sustained serious injuries during a visit to the park. The ruling is significant as it addresses the validity of arbitration agreements in personal injury cases.
McKinney's case began after he visited the trampoline park on November 6, 2022, where he suffered a displaced oblique fracture of his right femur. Prior to this visit, McKinney had signed Release and Indemnification Agreements for himself and his minor son during visits in June and July 2022. However, on the November visit, he did not sign a release for himself, only for his son. Following the injury, McKinney filed a complaint against UA Adventure North on February 12, 2025, alleging negligence, gross negligence, and seeking punitive damages.
In response to McKinney's complaint, UA Adventure North filed a motion to dismiss the case and, alternatively, a motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, arguing that the prior agreements should govern the dispute. However, on October 2, 2025, the trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, leading UA Adventure North to appeal the decision on October 21, 2025.
The court's ruling focused on whether a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties. The court noted that a denial of a motion to compel arbitration is typically considered an interlocutory order, which means it does not resolve the entire case and is not usually immediately appealable. However, the court also recognized that such an order could be appealed if it affects a substantial right.
Judge Jefferson Griffin, who authored the opinion, stated, "The trial court concluded Defendant failed to carry the burden of proving that the Parties mutually agreed to submit arbitration disputes arising from Plaintiff’s [6 November 2022] visit to Defendant’s premises." The trial court found that UA Adventure North did not provide sufficient evidence that the agreements from June and July were intended to apply to all future visits or were indefinitely binding.
The court emphasized that without a valid arbitration agreement, UA Adventure North could not demonstrate that a substantial right was affected by the trial court's ruling. Therefore, the Court of Appeals concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the trial court's order denying the motion to compel arbitration.
This ruling has implications for both parties involved. For McKinney, it allows his negligence lawsuit to proceed in court without being forced into arbitration, which could limit the scope of his claims and potential damages. For UA Adventure North, the decision highlights the importance of clearly establishing the terms of any arbitration agreements, especially in cases involving personal injuries.
Moving forward, this case may serve as a cautionary tale for businesses that operate recreational facilities. They must ensure that their liability waivers and arbitration agreements are clearly communicated and understood by patrons to avoid similar legal challenges. The ruling also underscores the need for individuals to be aware of the legal documents they sign, particularly when it comes to waiving rights to sue or to seek redress in court.
As for what’s next, UA Adventure North may consider whether to pursue further legal options, including a potential appeal to a higher court. However, the court filing did not specify any related cases or further actions planned by either party at this time.