Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park
New Jersey Supreme Court
901 A.2d 381 (2006)
- Written by Lauren Petersen, JD
Facts
Twelve-year-old Andrew Hojnowski (plaintiff) went with his mother to a skate park operated by Vans (defendant), a skateboard retailer. Before Hojnowski was permitted to enter the skate park, Vans required his mother to sign a release. The release contained a requirement to arbitrate any claims of injury and a waiver of the right to seek damages if injured by Vans’s negligence. Hojnowski fractured his femur at the skate park when another skateboarder aggressively forced Hojnowski off a ramp. Prior to the accident, Hojnowski’s parents had complained to Vans about the aggressive skateboarder. Hojnowski sued Vans for negligence in its failure to supervise the skate park and its participants. In response, Vans filed a demand for arbitration. Hojnowski filed a motion to invalidate the pre-injury release that Hojnowski’s mother had signed, while Vans cross-moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted Vans’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing Hojnowski’s complaint and ordering arbitration. The trial court declined to rule on Hojnowski’s motion to invalidate the pre-injury release, leaving that issue to be determined in arbitration. Hojnowski appealed. The appeals court affirmed the validity of the arbitration clause but held that the pre-injury release was invalid. Hojnowski appealed the affirmation of the arbitration clause, and Vans appealed the invalidation of the pre-injury release.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Zazzali, J.)
Dissent (LaVecchia, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.