A recent Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision is a clear win for parents and a reminder that not every liability waiver is ironcladâespecially when it involves childrenâs activities.
In Ava E. Cross v. BeFree Enterprises, LLC (SJC-13933, decided November 10, 2026), five-year-old Ava broke her arm after falling from equipment during a gymnastics class at The Little Gym of West Boylston. Her family sued for negligence, alleging inadequate supervision. The gym responded by pointing to a liability waiver her father had signed when she enrolled, which purported to waive âany and all claims of liabilityâ for injuries.
The gym argued the waiver barred the claim. The SJC disagreed. The court held that the waiver was unenforceable under Massachusettsâ Health Club Act (G.L. c. 93, §§ 78â88). That statute prohibits any âcontract for health club servicesâ from containing a provision in which the buyer agrees not to assert claims arising from the buyerâs activities at the health club. The court found that The Little Gym qualifies as a âhealth clubâ under the broad statutory definition (a facility offering instruction or facilities for physical fitness, conditioning, or well-being), that the enrollment paperwork plus waiver constituted a âcontract for health club services,â and that Avaâs negligence claim arose from her activities there.
As a result, the waiver was void as contrary to public policy, the Superior Courtâs summary judgment for the gym was vacated, and the case was remanded.
The ruling underscores that consumer-protection statutes can override otherwise common contractual waivers, particularly in recreational and instructional settings for children. Facilities that market themselves as enrichment or developmental programs rather than traditional gyms may still fall under the statute if they offer physical skills training. For parents, itâs a reminder to read the fine printâbut also that some fine print simply doesnât hold up in court.