Archive for the ‘Health & Fitness Facility’ Category

And She’s Off . . . Literally – Woman Falls From Treadmill; Unable to Prove Cause (NY)

November 6, 2015

Photo by Jennifer C. (no changes made)

Davis v. Town Sports International (New York)
(not published)

The plaintiff a a member of the defendant health club and she regularly used the treadmills at the facility.  One day she fell while attempting to get on a treadmill, injuring herself.  She filed a negligence lawsuit against the defendant, and the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.  the New York Supreme Court granted the motion finding that the defendant had established by the evidence (including the plaintiff’s own deposition testimony) that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her fall, and that she could only speculate as to the cause.  Plaintiff was unable to raise any triable issues in opposition to the motion.  The Court further noted that even if it accepted the plaintiff’s speculation that another member had failed to turn off the machine prior to plaintiff attempting to use it, the Court noted that such a claim would be barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk.

Advertisements

Maintenance Mystery – Gross Negligence is an Issue of Fact for Jury in Fitness Club Equipment Case (CA)

August 7, 2015

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

Plaintiff suffered a traumatic brain injury when the back panel of a “FreeMotion cable crossover machine struck her in the head at the defendant’s workout facility.  Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging claims for ordinary and gross negligence and strict product liability.  The defendant moved for summary judgment arguing (1) the written release of liability in its membership application was a complete defense to the negligence claims, (2) it could not be liable under a products liability claim because it was a service provide and it was not in the chain of commerce, and (3) the plaintiff could not reasonably demonstrate an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care or a failure to exercise scant care which was required to state a claim for gross negligence because the defendant’s technician routinely inspected the equipment and performed preventative maintenance on it.

Plaintiff opposed the motion, and, in the alternative, sought a continuance of the motion based on the fact that the defendant claimed that it was unable to produce the maintenance technician for deposition because he was not longer employed by defendant and he could not be found.  The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion to continue, noting that the maintenance technician had been identified many months before the defendant filed its motion for summary judgment, but plaintiff elected not to subpoena him until after it received the motion.  The trial court then granted the defendant’s motion finding (1) the primary purpose of the membership agreement was the provision of fitness services such that defendant could not be held strictly responsible under the products liability claim, (2) the ordinary negligence and premises liability claims were barred by the release of liability in the membership agreement, and (3) the defendant had met its burden to show it was not grossly negligent by establishing “it had a system of preventative and responsive maintenance of its equipment.”  Plaintiff appealed the trial court decision, but only as to the ruling on its motion to continue and as to the gross negligence claim. (more…)

Feel the Burn – “Boot Camp” Participant Injury Claim Barred (NY)

July 24, 2015

Alonge v. Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. (New York)

The plaintiff participated in a “boot camp” exercise program for approximately a year.  During one of the group exercise programs, another participant ran into her, causing her personal injury.  Plaintiff sued that defendant operator of the camp, alleging negligence.  The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based on primary assumption if risk.  The trial court granted the defendant’s motion and the plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court affirmed the decision, finding that the plaintiff had observed “the open and obvious risk of running into participants in the class during drill exercises, and after fully appreciating the risk of colliding with other participants, plaintiff nonetheless elected to participate in the activity, thereby assuming the risk that resulted in her injuries.”

¡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…)

Up the Creek Without a Row Machine – Claim of Man Injured at Fitness Facility Barred by Membership Agreement (DE)

July 13, 2015

Ketler v. PFPA, LLC (Delaware)
(unpublished trial court disposition)

Plaintiff purchased a gym membership from Planet Fitness and agreed to the terms of the facility’s membership agreement.  Plaintiff thereafter sustained personal injuries at the defendant’s workout facility when a cable broke on a seated rowing machine that he was using.  He and his wife filed a lawsuit against Planet Fitness, alleging negligence, and Planet Fitness filed an answer asserting primary assumption of the risk as an affirmative defense based on the language of the membership agreement.  The defendant then filed a motion for a judgment on the pleadings.

The plaintiff did not dispute that he signed the membership agreement, but he argued that the agreement did not include a specific reference to the negligent wrongdoing alleged.  The court disagreed, noting that the agreement clearly provided that plaintiff could not hold the defendant liable for any injury even if the defendant’s own negligence caused the injury.  The court found the membership agreement to be “an unambiguous and express release.”

Plaintiff contended that he was entitled to factual discovery before the court cold resolve the issue.  However, the court stated that the language of the membership agreement was controlling and no further discovery was needed.  The court explained that “Delaware’s decisional law on contract interpretation permit the Court to give full force and effect to the Release.”

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…)

Feeling the Heat – Kids Gym Did Not Cause Burn Injury to Grandmother (NY)

June 1, 2015

Riccio v. Kid Fit, Inc. (New York)

It’s all fun and games until someone gets burned.  The plaintiff was attending her grandson’s birthday party at a kids gym facility.  She attempted to carry a chafing tray from a table to a nearby sink, and she was burned by the lit sterno cannister.  Plaintiff filed an action against the gym facility, and the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court.

Plaintiff appealed, but the decision was affirmed by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.  First, the Court disagreed with the defendant concerning the application of the doctrine of primary assumption of risk.  The Court explained that the doctrine did not apply because “the plaintiff was not involved in a sporting event or a recreational activity when she allegedly was injured.”  Nonetheless, the Court affirmed the decision based on causation.

The Court noted that “[a]lthough the issue of proximate cause is generally for the jury, liability may not be imposed upon a party who merely furnishes the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event but is not one of its causes.”  The employees of the defendant had “inadvertently disposed of the caps to the sterno cannisters prior to the accident,” but that “merely furnished the occasion for the accident, and any alleged negligence by the defendant did not proximately cause the accident.”  In conclusion, “[t]he plaintiff’s actions in carrying the lit sterno cannister so close to her body superseded the defendants’ conduct and terminated the defendants’ liability for her injuries.”

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…)

Headline: Water is Wet – Defendant Wins Health Club Locker Room Slip and Fall Case (OH)

April 28, 2015

Daher v. Bally’s Total Fitness (Ohio)

The plaintiff was a member of the defendant’s health club.  On a visit to the club, she slipped and fell on a wet surface in the locker room.  Plaintiff filed an action against the defendant alleging negligent maintenance of the premises.  The defendant filed a motion to summary judgment based upon the “open & obvious doctrine” and the contract signed by members containing clear and unequivocal release language.  The plaintiff did not oppose the motion, and the trial court granted the defendants’ motion.  Despite not having opposed the motion, the plaintiff appealed the ruling.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the trial court ruling.  First, the Court explained that despite the fact that the plaintiff had not opposed the motion, the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment absent proof that such judgment was appropriate.  Looking at the evidence, the Court concluded that “the wet condition of the locker room near the pool area was open and obvious.”  Plaintiff argued that the doctrine should not apply because “there was no alternative route or other means available for [her] to protect herself from the hazard posed by the wet floor,” but the Court was unconvinced. (more…)

Legal Workout – Fitness Club Defends Negligence, Gross Negligence, Products Claims (CA)

March 23, 2015

24 hour fitness logoGrebing v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (California)

In 2012, a member of a 24 Hour Fitness facility in La Mirada, California was injured while using a “low row” machine during a workout.  The clip holding the weight on the machine failed, causing the machine’s handlebar to strike the plaintiff in the forehead and allegedly causinghead, back, and neck injuries.  Plaintiff filed a complaint against the fitness facility for (1) negligence, (2) negligent products liability, (3) strict products liability, and (4) breach of implied warranty of merchantability.
(more…)