Archive for the ‘Dangerous Condition’ Category

¡Peligro! – Woman Falls from Treadmill; Waiver Fraud and Gross Negligence Alleged (CA)

July 17, 2015

Jimenez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (California)

The plaintiff fell backwards off a moving treadmill at the defendant’s workout facility and suffered severe head injuries when she hit her head on the exposed steel foot of a leg exercise machine that had been placed behind the treadmill.  Plaintiff filed an action against the workout facility, alleging premises liability, general negligence, and loss of consortium.  Plaintiff contended that the defendant was grossly negligent in setting up the treadmill in a manner that violated the manufacturer’s safety instructions.  The defendant moved for summary judgment based on the liability release that plaintiff signed when she joined the facility.  The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed. (more…)

Wild Ride – Paraplegic Injured on Roller Coaster Loses Jury Verdict (CA)

July 2, 2015

Rogers v. Magic Mountain, LLC (California)

Plaintiff was involved in an accident in 1996, which caused him to suffer from paraplegia and related medical complications.  In 2010, he rode the X2 “4th Dimension” roller coaster at Six Flags Magic Mountain, an amusement park in Valencia, California.  While on the ride, plaintiff suffered a fracture to his right femur.  Plaintiff did not feel the injury as a result of his paraplegia.  A few days later, his right leg was amputated after blood clotting blocked the flow of blood to his leg.  Plaintiff sued the amusement park and the ride manufacturer, alleging premises liability, general negligence and products liability.

The amusement park filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied by the trial court.  The case continued, and a ten day jury trial ensued.  After trial, the jury issued a special verdict, finding that the amusement park was negligent, but that its negligence was not a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff.  As to the ride manufacturer, the jury found that (1) the ride did not have potential risks that were known at the time of their design, manufacture and sale that would support a failure to warn claim, and (2) the design of the ride was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff, but that the risks of the ride did not outweigh the benefits of the design.  Therefore, the jury found that neither defendant had legal responsibility for the harm caused to the plaintiff.

Plaintiff appealed the decision contending that the special verdict was defective and the evidence was insufficient to support the special verdict.  However, the Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendants.  The Court noted that the plaintiff had not objected to the special verdict or any of its stipulated changes.  Regardless, the Court did not find any inconsistency, ambiguity, or unresolved issue in the special verdict.  Plaintiff complained that the jury had improperly allocated 100% fault to the plaintiff without first finding that the plaintiff was negligent.  However, the Court explained that the specific allocation of fault to the plaintiff was merely an “irregularity,” and not an “inconsistency.”  The jury had already determined that neither defendant’s was responsible (the park’s negligence did not cause the harm and the risk of the manufacturer’s design did not outweigh its benefits).  As a result, the Court noted that “it [did] not matter whether plaintiff was negligent or not — he [could not] recover from defendants.”  According to the Court, “the issues of negligence and causation were properly presented to the jury in the special verdict form.”  The Court was also convinced that “there was ample evidence from which the jury could properly conclude that [manufacturer] was unaware of potential risks at the time the X2 vehicles were designed.”

Mirror Mirror Off the Wall – Fitness Member’s Injury Claim Relating to Falling Mirror Survives Release Motion (IL)

June 16, 2015

Hawkins v. Capital Fitness, Inc. (Illinois)

Plaintiff was a member of the defendant’s fitness club.  He was injured when a mirror fell from the wall and struck him in the head.  As a result, he filed a personal injury action, alleging the negligent failure to secure the mirror or warn patrons about the mirror.  The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based on the “Disclaimers, Waiver, Release, and Indemnification” language found in the defendant’s membership agreement.  The trial court granted the motion, entering judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. (more…)

Deeply Depressed – Experienced Skier Claim Relating to “Depressions” in Snow Survives Court Motion (NY)

May 26, 2015

Paulus v. Holimont, Inc. (New York)

The sixty-right year old plaintiff was a self-described “accomplished” skier, who had been skiing since the age of 5.  Plaintiff had participated in various ski races throughout the years, and he had skied on different mountains throughout the world involving varying terrain, including ice and moguls.  Plaintiff drove from his home in Ohio to the defendant’s ski area in New York.  It was his second visit to the defendant’s resort.  On his first run of the day, plaintiff was coming down a trail at the facility called “Corkscrew” (a trail rated “more difficult” with a blue square), when he encountered difficult terrain and crashed, suffering injuries.  Plaintiff used racing skis and boots, and he admitted that he liked to ski fast.  He estimated that he was traveling twenty miles an hour at the time of the incident.  Plaintiff acknowledged that a “blaze orange caution sign was placed directly at the top of the portion of the Corkscrew trail where [he] was injured.”  However, the plaintiff testified that he did not believe he had observed the sign as he cut over to the Corkscrew trail from another trail (i.e., plaintiff believed he skied onto the Corkscrew trail below the caution sign).

Plaintiff (and his wife) sued the defendant for negligence, and the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff’s claim should be barred by primary assumption of risk.  The trial court acknowledged that in New York “[d]ownhill skier ‘assume the inherent risks of personal injury caused by, among other things, terrain, weather conditions, ice, trees and manmade objects that are incidental to the provision or maintenance of a ski facility.'”  The doctrine is recognized in New York’s Safety in Skiing Code.  Additionally, “variations in terrain, including moguls, are recognized risks that are inherent in the sport of downhill skiing.”

(more…)

Dressed for the Occasion – Wedding Reception Guests Pour Soap and Water on Dance Floor; Hotel Potentially Liable for Slip and Fall (Puerto Rico)

May 19, 2015

Blomquist v. Horned Dorset Primavera (Puerto Rico)
(unpublished trial court disposition)

Plaintiff was attending the wedding of a friend in Puerto Rico.  At some point during the reception, she left to change into a bathing suit as some of the guests were going to use the hotel’s pool.  While plaintiff was gone, other wedding guests poured water and soap onto the dance floor and used the dance floor to dance, slip, and slide on the wet soapy surface.  Plaintiff returned from changing and she slipped and fell on the wet, soapy dance floor, suffering personal injury.  Plaintiff sued the hotel, contending that the hotel failed to maintain the dance floor in a safe condition and failed to warn her of the dangerous condition that caused her to fall.  Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the wedding guests (including plaintiff) created the allegedly dangerous condition and that there was not enough time for defendant to discovery or stop the “self-inflicted hazard.”

(more…)

No Free Lunch (or Vacation) – Florida Supreme Court Confirms Decision to Enforce Release Despite Lack of “Negligence” Language (FL)

May 13, 2015

Sanislo v.Give the Kids the World, Inc. (Florida)

The defendant non-profit organization provided free vacations to seriously ill children and their families.  The plaintiff went with her ill child on one of the defendant’s vacations, and she suffered an injury when a wheelchair lift collapsed at a resort village.  The plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit against the defendant, and the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based upon a both release of liability that was included in in the wish request form filled out by the plaintiff and a liability release form signed by the plaintiff after she arrived at the resort village.  Plaintiff countered with her own motion for partial summary judgment on the defendant’s affirmative defense of release.  The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion and denied the defendant’s motion, and the case proceeded to trial.

(more…)

Stuck Between a Dumbbell and a Hard Place – Fitness Club Members Claims RE Smashed Finger Dismissed (TX)

May 12, 2015

 

Grijalva v. Bally Total Fitness (Texas)

Plaintiff had been a member of defendant’s health and fitness club for many years.  When he joined, plaintiff signed a detailed Membership Application, which included waiver and release and assumption of risk language.  About a year after he joined, plaintiff was injured while lifting weights.  His finger was caught between his own weights and a set of weights that was left on the floor by another member, causing disfigurement and loss of use.  Plaintiff sued the defendant club for premises liability, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of common law warranty, fraudulent inducement, and breach of contract.  In particular, plaintiff alleged that there were “several weights or dumbbells left around the various benches nearby [the bench where he was lifting weights] that were not returned to their regular and specific rack locations.”  A set of those weights left by another member caused plaintiff’s injury.  The intentional conduct claim was based on plaintiff’s allegation that the defendant failed to assist him “in mitigating the extent of his injuries to his finger” by “failing to summon medical assistance immediately.”

Defendant moved for summary judgment, contending (1) plaintiff had waived his right to pursue his negligence claims by executing the waiver and release provisions of the Membership Application, and (2) plaintiff could not provide evidence of all essential elements of his remaining claims.  Initially, plaintiff asserted that he did not sign a waiver and release in the Membership Agreement (he claimed that while he signed the second page of the agreement, the waiver and release provision is on the third page, which he did not sign), that he did not “speak and write English properly,” and that the club did not discuss the waiver and release with him.  He also argued that the waiver and release in the Membership Application did not meet Texas’ “fair notice requirement” because it was not conspicuous.  The trial court granted the club’s motion, dismissing plaintiff’s claims, and plaintiff appealed.

(more…)

And the Runner is Out – Claim By Spectator at a Little League Game Barred by Recreational Use Statute (RI)

May 11, 2015

Carlson v. Town of South Kingston (Rhode Island)

The plaintiff was attending her son’s little league game being played at a park and field owned and maintained by the defendant town.  As she was walking from a batting cage area over to a concession stand to meet her son, she stepped in a “divot” and broke her leg.  Testimony established that the “divot” was created by kids waiting to get into the batting cages when they would dig their cleats into the ground.  Plaintiff filed an action against the town, alleging the town negligently maintained the premises.  The town moved for summary judgment based on Rhode Island’s Recreational Use Statute (“RUS”).  Plaintiff objected to the motion citing two exceptions to the RUS and alleging: (1) the town had “willfully or maliciously failed to guard or warn against a dangerous condition on the land,” and (2) the town had charged plaintiff for her access to the park.  The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

(more…)

In the Rough – Golf Course Defeats Claim of Golfer Who Tripped Over a “Clump” of Mowed Grass (NY)

May 5, 2015

German v. City of New York (New York)
(unreported trial court disposition)

A veteran golfer tripped and fell on a “clump” of wet grass on a golf course, suffering a significant leg injury.  He filed a negligence lawsuit against the golf course, claiming that it failed to properly maintained the course, failed to properly cut and remove or disburse cut grass at the location of the fall, failed to keep the course free from hazardous conditions, and failed to property train, supervise and coordinate its employees.  The golf course filed a motion for summary judgment based on the doctrine of primary assumption of risk.  The trial court (the Supreme Court of New York) granted the course’s motion.

On the day of the incident, the grass was very wet and golf carts were banned from the fairway.  Plaintiff completed the first 12 holes of the course, and by the time the plaintiff reached the 13th hole, the grass was in the process of being cut.  Plaintiff stepped out of the cart and began walking down the hill towards his ball when he tripped and fell on the clump of wet grass that purportedly was left on the fairway after the grass had been cut.

(more…)

Pit Road Penalty – Release Agreements Enforceable But Not to Bar Negligent Bleacher Maintenance Claim (NY)

May 4, 2015

Stevens v. Payne (NewYork)
(trial court opinion)

The plaintiff was injured while watching his daughter compete as a race care driver at a racetrack in New York.  Plaintiff suffered a heart attack and fell off of bleachers landing six feet below onto the ground, resulting in permanent paralysis of his legs.  He then sued the racetrack (Skyline Raceway) and the sprint car sanctioning entity (Capital Region Sprintcar Agency [“CRSA”]), alleging there was a dangerous condition on the bleachers because they lack side railing.  CRSA file a motion for summary judgment on tow grounds: (1) it did not owe a duty to plaintiff for the condition of the bleachers because it neither owned nor controlled them; and (2) the plaintiff’s cause of action was barred by the two waiver and release agreements signed by the plaintiff (one signed for the CRSA in connection with the race car entry, and one signed for Skyline at the event on the day of the incident).

(more…)