Featured Article:

Woman Held to Waiver Signed by Husband in California Health Club Case

By Doyice Cotten

6168341677_b7ba513d05_zSheila Brown joined 24 Hour on February 27, 2001, signing the 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. membership agreement containing a liability waiver.  She terminated her membership several months later; then, after a few months her son renewed her membership through his corporate membership. Her husband signed the club waiver on her behalf.

Two years later, Sheila tripped over a dumbbell that had been left on the floor and suffered injury. She filed suit against 24 Hour and claimed the waiver was unenforceable because she had not signed the waiver. She produced evidence to that fact.(Brown v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., 2007 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5643)

The court accepted the fact that Shiela’s husband had signed the waiver. It noted however that Shiela had signed an identically worded membership agreement containing an identically worded waiver just a few months earlier. She then worked out under the agreement signed by her husband on a number of occasions before suffering the injury and on each occasion, she accessed 24 Hour’s facilities by “displaying the membership agreement, or by using a membership card inscribed with language cautioning the user that the member was bound by the terms covered in the membership agreement.”

The court noted that Civil Code section 1589 provides, “A voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a consent to all the obligations arising from it, so far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting.”  The court ruled that

By accepting the benefits of the membership agreement, and using the health club, plaintiff became bound to the obligations set forth in the membership agreement to the extent she knew or should have known of them. Under the circumstances present here, we hold as a matter of law that even if plaintiff did not know the terms of the release in the second membership agreement, she constructively knew of them based upon her prior dealings, the nature of her membership, and her use of an access-granting membership contract or card that put her on notice of those terms.

The court affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of 24 Hour.

Risk Management Concern

One should understand that one of the factors in this decision was the fact that the plaintiff had signed an identical waiver only a few months earlier and was or should have been familiar with the nature of her membership. If no previous waiver had been signed, the court might well have ruled the waiver unenforceable. So, from a risk management standpoint, providers should always have each party to a waiver sign the waiver himself or herself.

Photo Credit: Thanks to Nathaniel at Flickr.

Read the Article

Recent Articles:

2849172733_05d89b22af_z

Illinois Drag Racing Waiver Upheld for Negligence — But not for Strict Liability

By Doyice Cotten David Jones, suffered permanent injuries in a drag-racing accident resulting from the failure of an added part during the performance of a wheelie. He filed this products liability action against UPR and numerous other entities alleged to have participated in the production or design of the Product, alleging negligence and strict liability (Jones v. UPR Products, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54887) He had previously signed a Waiver of Liability Assumption of Risk and Indemnity Agreement.... [read more]
P1290362

Duration of Waivers: A 3 Part Series – Part 3

Part 3 By Doyice Cotten In a Massachusetts case (Borges v. Sterling Suffolk Racecourse, Inc., 2000), Israel Borges, a trainer, sustained injuries when he slipped due to ice on the ground and fell while on property at the Suffolk Downs Track owned and controlled by the defendants. The defendants moved for summary judgment because Borges’ claim was barred by a waiver executed in a stall application. The pertinent part of the waiver stated: Suffolk Downs,... [read more]
25765587063_d64c99a324_z

Duration of Waivers: A 3 Part Series – Part 2

Part 2 By Doyice Cotten Nicholas Weinrish was injured while operating a go-kart on the defendant’s track (Weinrich V. Lehigh Valley Grand Prix Inc.,  2015). A piece of plastic covering a guardrail broke and protruded toward the track; plaintiff suffered an injury to his leg when he struck the plastic. Weinrich had patronized the establishment six months earlier and had signed a waiver of liability at that time.... [read more]
312217478_d6809aa6dc_z-1

Duration of Waivers: A 3 Part Series — Part 1

Part 1 By Doyice Cotten Tariq Davis, a minor, was injured when he ran into the street and was struck by an auto while chasing a soccer ball (Davis v. American Youth Soccer Organization, Virgin Islands, 2016). The American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO) claimed protection from a waiver signed by a parent on behalf of the youth. Courts in the Virgin Islands have stated that “an exculpatory clause which limits or absolves a party for its own ordinary negligence is generally enforceable, ... [read more]
284617740_e58abe9d1f_z

NJ Federal Court Addresses Several Waiver Issues:

By Doyice Cotten In a recent New Jersey case (Kang v. LA Fitness of South Plainfield, 2016), the court addressed several issues relating to waivers. Among them was 1) non-reader or speaker of English, 2) font size, 3) national association standards, 4) failure to read the waiver, 5) failure to explain the waiver, 6) failure to initial a provision of the waiver, and 7) contract of adhesion. Ms Kang was injured while working out on the chin/dip assist pull-up machine.... [read more]
dsc00071

Provider’s Cavalier Attitude toward Safety and Risk Management Proves Costly

By Doyice Cotten   Two major problems with liability waivers are that they are sometimes misunderstood and misused by owners or managers of sport businesses. First, some sport managers think that a liability waiver provides total protection against lawsuits for injury. They think they are completely protected against loss. But waivers do not always work! Sometimes there are statutes prohibiting their use (e.g., G.O.L 5-326 in NY prohibiting waivers when there is an entry fee). Sometimes the waiver is poorly written (e.g.,... [read more]