A clip failed on a rowing machine at a 24 Hour Fitness, resulting in severe injury to plaintiff. Plaintiff had signed a release, agreeing the facility was not responsible for injuries, even if they occurred as a result of its own negligence. The trial court granted 24 Hour Fitness’s motion for summary judgment. On appeal, plaintiff contended: (1) there was a triable issue of fact whether defendant was grossly negligent; (2) the release did not relieve defendant of its own negligence: and, (3) defendant was in the chain of distribution and liable based on product liability. In affirming, the appeals court stated that in light of the safety measures regularly taken by defendant, there was no gross negligence, “an exculpatory contract releasing a party from liability for future ordinary negligence is valid unless it is prohibited by statute or impairs the public interest,” and “the dominant purpose of 24 Hour’s membership agreement with [plaintiff] was providing fitness services rather than supplying a product. (Grebing v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; January 29, 2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 631, [184 Cal.Rptr.3d 155].)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.