TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO PROVISION IN LIABILITY WAIVER AGREEMENT SIGNIFYING THE DEFENDANT’S INTENTION THAT ANY CLAIM INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY BE SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION

Urban Air Jacksonville v. Hinton, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D1523 (Fla. 5th DCA July 11, 2025):

The defendant trampoline park owner appealed the trial court’s order denying a motion to stay and compel arbitration. The plaintiff had alleged that while visiting the defendant’s premises, he slipped and fell on a liquid substance in the restroom. He alleged that the defendant negligently maintained the floors and failed to warn him of a dangerous condition.

Defendant moved to compel arbitration based on the liability waiver that the plaintiff had signed. The agreement provided, in relevant part, that the trampoline park could potentially be a dangerous activity, noting the chance that a child could be seriously injured or killed by participating in the activity because of the dangers inherent in it.

Within the waiver, there was a statement that any dispute arising out of or related to the agreement, the premises, or personal injury, would be subject to arbitration.

The plaintiff argued that the agreement did not specifically cover a slip and fall in the bathroom, and that because the agreement was written so broadly there had to be a nexus between the activity being governed and the arbitration clause. He asserted there was no way he could have known what rights he was contracting away.

The defendant agreed that the paragraph was broadly written but argued that its breadth covered a slip and fall in the bathroom.

The court found that the trial judge erred in determining that the claims did not have a significant relationship to the agreement. Before the plaintiff could participate in the activities and gain access to the facility, he was required to sign the agreement.

While it is true that the use of a bathroom did not involve the many activities listed in the agreement, the agreement also listed use of locker room area, dining area, sidewalks, and other portions of the premises. Here, there was not a “total absence of any mention of rights” regarding personal injury or negligence actions. In fact, the agreement applied to the plaintiff whether he participated actively or passively, even including injuries from slipping, falling or tripping.

Thus, the court found there was a significant relationship between the plaintiff’s claims and the agreement, thereby expressly requiring that the claims be subject to arbitration.