A New York appellate court has upheld a decision denying a trampoline park's request to move a personal injury case to arbitration. The ruling affects the case of I.S. v. WNU, LLC, where a young girl was injured at the park. This decision is significant as it could impact how similar cases are handled in the future, especially regarding arbitration agreements.
The case stems from an incident on May 6, 2023, when the infant plaintiff, referred to as I.S., was allegedly injured while visiting the trampoline and adventure park owned by WNU, LLC. Following the incident, I.S. and her mother filed a lawsuit in August 2024 seeking damages for the injuries sustained. The dispute centers around whether the park can compel arbitration based on agreements the company claims were signed by the mother.
WNU, LLC argued that two release and indemnification agreements, which included arbitration clauses, were executed prior to the accident. However, the plaintiffs contended that no valid agreement existed for the day of the incident. They maintained that the agreements submitted by the defendant were not applicable to the case at hand, as they were signed on different dates.
The case reached the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York after the Supreme Court in Suffolk County denied WNU's motion to compel arbitration and stay the lawsuit. The first order, dated January 14, 2025, rejected the defendant's request, stating that the company did not provide sufficient evidence of a valid arbitration agreement. A subsequent motion by WNU for leave to renew this request was also denied on June 17, 2025.
The court ruled that to compel arbitration, a party must demonstrate the existence of a valid agreement. The judges noted, "A party seeking to compel arbitration must establish the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate." They emphasized that the agreement must be clear and unequivocal, which WNU failed to prove in this case.
The ruling was delivered by a panel of judges including Betsy Barros, Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, Barry E. Warhit, and Elena Goldberg Velazquez. They affirmed the lower court's decisions and stated that the plaintiffs could not be forced into arbitration due to the lack of a clear agreement.
This ruling has implications for both the plaintiffs and the defendant. For the plaintiffs, it means they can continue their lawsuit in court instead of being pushed into arbitration, which can often limit the ability to seek damages. For WNU, LLC, the ruling may complicate their defense strategy and could lead to increased liability if the case proceeds to trial.
The court’s decision also highlights the importance of clear and explicit agreements in arbitration cases. It sets a precedent that could influence how future cases involving similar agreements are handled, particularly in the context of recreational facilities and personal injury claims.
Looking ahead, WNU, LLC may consider appealing the decision to a higher court, although details about any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case could affect how other businesses draft their liability waivers and arbitration clauses to ensure they are enforceable in court.