Here's the skinny on this. First, this case was certified to the Florida Supreme Court as a result of a conflict between district courts. District Courts are the Court's you appeal to if you lose in Circuit court (the court you are in when you file suit for damages in excess of the amount allowed in County Court). There are several districts across the state, usually comprised of several counties each.
Any time you have two separate district courts rendering opinions that counter one another, this obviously creates a conflict. The reason? Well, when you are making an argument in Circuit Court, usually you are asking the circuit court to rule one way or another based upon the way District Courts have ruled on a particular issue in the past. This is called case law. In other words, it's a way of saying to the Circuit Court, "Look, here's the way the district courts have interpreted this issue in the past. Therefore, follow their example and interpret this issue the same way."
Now, if you have two District Courts ruling in opposite manners on the same issue, it makes it difficult for a Circuit Court Judge to rule in any one direction without risking being appealed based upon the competing or different opinion from another District. In this case, the 4th DCA (District Court of Appeal) ruled in a manner different from the 5th DCA when it determined the release wasn't adequate protection when the life of a child was involved under these circumstances. As a result, the District Court "certified" the question of a parent's ability to bind a minor's estate by signing a release. Once certified, it is up to the Florida Supreme Court to reach a determination on the certified issue.
So, that's how it gets to the Florida Supreme Court. Now, for the issues at hand. Actually, it's one issue. Wether or not a release is sufficient in the case of a child. Obviously, the law has always been that, with the exception of illegal activities, any adult can sign a release of liability which is enforceable should accidents occur. Provided the release had all of the right language that's required (and established via DCA rulings over the years) it would shield the individual or entity from liability should the releasing party get injured or worse.
The glitch in this case is the fact that the parents were divorced and the mother had no idea the father was letting the son race. Moreover, the fact that it was a child who was in his father's care and therefore hadn"t reached the age of majority allowing him to make decisions on his own, really throws a wrench into things.
I've read the briefs and the opinion reached by the 4th DCA when certifying the issue to the Supreme Court. The problem they see in this case is the fact that, while a parent can sign a release for their child, "The release causes a forfeiture of the minor’s property right to seek legal redress either through his parent or the appointment of a guardian ad litem."
Fields v. Kirton, 961 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Here's a link to the 4th DCA's opinion which lays out their concern and certification pretty well. http://www.4dca.org/August%202007/08-08-07/4D06-1486.op.pdf
In the end, they viewed the right to pursue the motocross park for damages resulting from injury (or in this case death), was a property right flowing to the child's estate that couldn't be waived by the parent. Actually an interesting take on the matter. While it's easy to see the basis for this argument, the fall out is huge. In determining this issue, the Supreme Court could potentially eviscerate releases and the insulating abilities they've always provided. However, the flip side would be to take away a property right that an estate would otherwise have. This is a tough one.
I am super tired right now and will look online tomorrow for a ruling. If I find it, I'll post it.
Hope that explained it a little better.
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/07/07-1739/07-1739_JurisIni.pdf
