## Facts

- A mother took her minor daughter to a retail store for ear piercing.
- The store required the mother to sign a preprinted agreement containing both (1) a release and (2) an indemnification clause.
- The indemnification clause required the mother to reimburse the store for claims brought by the mother or the child, including damages, costs, and attorney’s fees.
- After the piercing, the child developed a serious infection, was hospitalized, and suffered permanent disfigurement.
- The mother sued the store for negligence on her own behalf and as the child’s parent and guardian.
- A jury found the store 75% negligent and awarded the child about $69,740 in damages.
- The store moved for directed verdict and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence of causation; the trial court denied the motions.
- The store also pursued indemnity against the mother; the trial court entered an indemnity judgment against the mother that included the child’s verdict amount and the store’s fees and costs (about $200,274).
- The mother appealed the indemnity judgment; the store cross-appealed regarding causation and the scope of enforceability of indemnity.

## Issues

1. Whether an agreement requiring a parent to indemnify a commercial activity provider for the provider’s own negligence causing injury to the parent’s minor child is enforceable under Florida public policy.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying the store’s motion for directed verdict based on alleged insufficiency of evidence of causation.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the indemnity judgment to the extent it required the mother to indemnify the store for the store’s negligence causing injury to the child.
- The appellate court affirmed the negligence judgment and jury verdict in favor of the child.
- The appellate court held there was competent, substantial evidence supporting causation, and therefore no directed verdict was warranted.
- A separate opinion concurred in part and dissented in part, disagreeing with the majority’s public-policy invalidation of the indemnity clause absent legislative direction.

## Legal Principles

- An indemnification clause between a commercial activity provider and a parent is void as against Florida public policy when it requires the parent to indemnify the provider for the provider’s own negligence that injures the parent’s minor child.
- Courts may treat parental indemnification provisions as functionally equivalent to (or more harmful than) parental pre-injury releases because indemnity can effectively shift the economic burden of the provider’s negligence to the family and impair the child’s recovery.
- Denial of a directed verdict is affirmed where competent, substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding of causation, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the child’s negligence judgment against the store but refused to allow the store to shift liability back to the parent through an indemnification clause, concluding that such parental indemnity for a provider’s own negligence toward a minor violates Florida public policy protecting minors and the parent–child relationship.


Claire’s Boutiques, Inc. v. Locastro ex rel. Locastro, 85 So. 3d 1192 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)