Parents sign them without reading them: the online waiver that comes with enrolling a child in a gymnastics or tumbling class. On Tuesday, November 10, 2026, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that one of those waivers, signed by a father before his 5-year-old daughter fell and broke her arm at The Little Gym of West Boylston, cannot be used to throw out her negligence lawsuit.
The reason is a 1985 consumer protection law aimed at health clubs, and the court held that a children’s gymnastics center is a health club under that law. The decision, Cross v. BeFree Enterprises, LLC, SJC-13933, was written by Justice Gabrielle R. Wolohojian. We read the full opinion and the statute. Here is what happened, what the court said, and what it means for families who have signed these forms.
What happened
- The enrollment. In October 2020, the girl’s grandmother enrolled her, then 4, in a weekly class at The Little Gym of West Boylston, which is operated by BeFree Enterprises, LLC. Her father signed an online “Acknowledgement of Risk and Waiver of Liability,” and the grandmother paid by credit card the next day. The same steps were repeated in August 2021, the opinion says.
- The waiver. It said the parent agreed “to waive any and all claims of liability, release and hold harmless The Little Gym International, Inc. and its franchisees in the event that such injury . . . may occur to me or my child.”
- The fall. On October 10, 2021, at the beam station, the girl tried to sit on top of a “red bar,” fell and injured her arm. A coach was present, according to the opinion.
- The lawsuit. Through her mother, the girl sued for negligence, alleging the gym failed to supervise the children in its care and that she was left unattended. The gym raised the waiver as a defense.
- The lower court. A Superior Court judge granted summary judgment for the gym, concluding the waiver was not a “contract for health club services.” The SJC took the appeal on its own initiative.
The law that voided the waiver
We read the statute at malegislature.gov. Three sections of Chapter 93 did the work:
- The ban. G.L. c. 93, § 80 says: “No contract for health club services may contain any provisions whereby the buyer agrees not to assert against the seller or any assignee or transferee of the health club services contract any claim or defense arising out of the health club services contract or the buyer’s activities at the health club.”
- The definition. Under § 78, a “health club” is any facility where a business “offers facilities for or instruction, training or assistance in the preservation, maintenance, encouragement or development of physical fitness, conditioning or well being.” The law lists examples, including gymnasiums, tennis and racquet clubs, health studios, weight control centers, and “martial arts and self-defense schools,” and says the term “shall include, but not be limited to,” those.
- The penalty. Under § 85, a health club contract that does not comply “shall be void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy.”
Why the court ruled against the gym
- The waiver was part of the contract. The gym argued the waiver, a separate document, was not itself a health club contract. The court said that standing alone it was not, but it was “part and parcel of a single transaction” with the enrollment paperwork and payment, and the documents must be read together. Together, their primary purpose was to let the child use the gym’s facilities and get instruction in “encouragement or development of physical fitness.”
- A kids’ gym is a health club. The gym argued it was more like an “early education enrichment program,” pointing to scheduled classes, close supervision and young customers. “Although Little Gym may indeed have features that traditional exercise gyms do not, that is not the question,” the court wrote. It has a room of padding and gymnastics equipment, employs coaches, and lists physical skills as one of its three program areas. “On this record, we have no hesitation in concluding that Little Gym is a ‘health club,'” the court said. It compared the gym to martial arts schools, which the statute names and which also teach children in instructor-led classes.
- Injury claims are covered, not just billing disputes. The gym argued the law was meant to bar waivers of contract claims only, not personal injury claims. The court said the text answers that: the ban covers claims arising out of “the buyer’s activities at the health club.” The opinion notes that phrase was added in the final version of the 1985 bill.
- “Massachusetts law favors the enforcement of releases.” The gym quoted that line from a 2002 SJC decision. The court said there is “no necessary inconsistency” between that general policy “and a legislative decision to ban releases in a particular, specialized context.”
Wait, don’t parent waivers usually hold up in Massachusetts?
Usually, yes, and that is why this ruling matters. In Sharon v. City of Newton, 437 Mass. 99 (2002), which we verified and read on CourtListener, the SJC enforced a release a father signed so his 16-year-old daughter could cheer at Newton North High School. The court held that “parents may execute an enforceable preinjury release on behalf of their minor children,” at least for “a voluntary, nonessential activity.” That ruling was limited to ordinary negligence; the city did not claim the release covered gross negligence or reckless or intentional conduct.
Sharon is still the general rule. What Cross adds is that the general rule does not help a business that falls within the health club law, because the Legislature banned these waivers there. A school sports release like the one in Sharon was not a contract with a health club.
What it means, and what it does not
- The gym has not been found negligent. The SJC vacated the judgment and sent the case back to Superior Court. The girl still has to prove her negligence claim. The ruling only removes the waiver as a defense.
- It depends on the business. The test is whether a place offers facilities for or instruction in physical fitness, conditioning or well being. The court applied it to this gym’s record. It did not rule on dance studios, youth sports leagues, trampoline parks or camps, and whether each one is a “health club” will turn on its own facts.
- Adults are covered too. The statute protects any “buyer” of health club services. The decision involved a child, but the ban on these waivers in § 80 is not limited to children.
- Other states. The court noted that New York, Maryland and Hawaii also bar liability waivers by statute in similar settings.
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly also reported the decision, and noted the Massachusetts Defense Lawyers Association filed a brief as a friend of the court.
Frequently asked questions
Is a gym liability waiver enforceable in Massachusetts?
Not if it is part of a contract with a “health club” and waives claims arising from your activities there. G.L. c. 93, § 80 bans those provisions, and § 85 makes them void. The SJC applied that rule in Cross v. BeFree Enterprises, LLC on November 10, 2026.
Can a parent waive a child’s right to sue in Massachusetts?
Generally yes, for voluntary activities and ordinary negligence, under Sharon v. City of Newton, 437 Mass. 99 (2002). But a waiver that falls under the health club law is void, even if a parent signed it.
Is a kids’ gymnastics class a “health club”?
The SJC held The Little Gym of West Boylston was one, because it offers facilities and instruction in developing physical fitness. Other businesses would be judged on their own facts.
Did the court find the gym was negligent?
No. It ruled only that the waiver does not bar the claim. The case returns to Superior Court.
Sources: Cross v. BeFree Enterprises, LLC, SJC-13933 (Mass. Nov. 10, 2026), slip opinion read in full. G.L. c. 93, §§ 78, 80 and 85, read at malegislature.gov. Sharon v. City of Newton, 437 Mass. 99 (2002), verified and read on CourtListener. Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, November 11 and 12, 2026. General information, not legal advice.