Yes, according to an Order by US District Judge Louise W. Flanagan in Kelly et al v. USA. However, the type of activity that the child is engaged in is critical for this question.

In Kelly, Plaintiff Morgan Kelly (age 15) was a cadet of the NJROTC program at her high school.  The program included an orientation visit to the US Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune.  Prior to that visit plaintiff and her parents received a “Waiver of Liability and Assumption of Risk Agreement” that included a hold harmless provision for any resulting injury during Morgan’s participation in the orientation.

The  orientation included an obstacle course known as the “Confidence Course.”  Morgan was injured when she was attempting to complete an obstacle called the “Slide for Life.”  According to the Order, “defendant knew that the ‘Slide for Life’ posed a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury if it were not successfully negotiated.  However, defendant did not assess the plaintiff’s physical capabilities before she climbed the ‘Slide for Life.’  Nor did defendant provide any safety harness, restraints, or other protection systems that would prevent her from falling.”

Morgan sought damages in excess of $10 million for her injuries. Defendant pled the affirmative defense of waiver and moved for summary judgment.

In granting summary judgment, Judge Flanagan noted:

"It does not appear that North Carolina courts have ruled on whether a liability waiver signed by a parent on behalf of a minor child is enforceable, yet numerous courts in other jurisdictions have upheld pre-injury liability waivers signed by parents on behalf of minors in the context of litigation filed against schools, municipalities, and clubs providing activities for children.”

As detailed in the Order, plaintiffs argued that the waiver was contrary to public policy.  Judge Flanagan recognized that “the public policy exception prohibits a person from contracting to protect himself from liability for negligence in the performance of a duty of public service, or where a public duty is owed, or public interest is involved, or where public interest requires the performance of a private duty.”

However, in upholding the waiver Judge Flanagan recognized that:

• Protecting the safety of minor school children in programs like JROTC (and NJROTC) is undoubtedly a matter of public interest. However, this case also involves a countervailing public interest in facilitating JROTC’s provision of non-commercial services to children on a voluntary basis without the risks and overwhelming costs of litigation and
• North Carolina has recognized a public interest in respecting parents’ authority over certain life decisions for their children. See Doe v. Holt, 332 N.C. 90, 97 (1992) (“[R]easonable parental decisions concerning children should [not] be reviewed in the courts of this state. Such decisions make up the essence of parental discretion, discretion which allows parents to shape the views, beliefs and values their children carry with them into adulthood. These decisions are for the parents to make, and will be protected as such.”).