Miller as Next Friend of E.M. v. House of Boom Kentucky, LLC
Kentucky Supreme Court
575 S.W.3d 656 (2019)

- Written by Katrina Sumner, JD
Facts
House of Boom, LLC (defendant) was a commercial trampoline park with various trampolines and stunt-related activities. Lisa Miller (plaintiff) took her daughter E.M., who was 11 years old, and E.M.’s friend to House of Boom. House of Boom required that when buying a ticket, the buyer had to select a check box indicating that the buyer had read House of Boom’s liability waiver. If the waiver were to be enforced, it would apply to the person buying the tickets, along with the buyer’s spouse, minor child, and ward. Miller checked this box. While playing at House of Boom, E.M. suffered a broken ankle. Miller sued House of Boom on E.M.’s behalf. The question before the Kentucky Supreme Court was whether a parent had the authority to sign a preinjury waiver relieving a for-profit commercial entity of liability in the event that the parent’s child was hurt while engaging in activities sponsored by the commercial entity. House of Boom presented several arguments, including: (1) enforcing a commercial, preinjury waiver signed by a parent for a child supports the parent’s fundamental liberty interest in caring for a child; (2) public-policy concerns related to preinjury releases do not implicate the same concerns as postinjury releases; and (3) enforcing the parent’s preinjury waiver facilitates low-cost recreational activities.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (VanMeter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.