Featured Article:

2016 Health Club Cases in New York — No Waivers

By Doyice Cotten

Picture 5Injuries occurring in health clubs in the State of New York can be problematic for club owners since protection against liability for negligence is ineffective in many circumstances – one being in places of amusement or recreation.  New York statute G.O.L. Sec. 5-326, passed in 1976, deems waivers void as against public policy under specific circumstances.  Specifically, the law provides:

[e]very covenant, agreement or understanding in or in connection with, or collateral to, any contract, membership application, ticket of admission or similar writing, entered into between the owner or operator of any pool, gymnasium, place of amusement or recreation or similar establishment and the user of such facilities, pursuant to which such owner or operator receives a fee or other compensation for the use of such facilities which exempts the said owner or operator from liability for damages caused by or resulting from the negligence of the owner, operator or person in charge of such establishment, or their agents, servants or employees, shall be deemed void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable (emphasis added).

In a recent issue of David Herbert’s The Exercise, Sports and Sports Medicine Standards & Malpractice Reporter, Herbert reports on three New York health club suits. Results of two of these show that all is not lost if a health club is sued for negligence.


Case 1

In Ingram v. Life Fitness (2016), the plaintiff, a long-time user of treadmills and five days a week user of the health club, was injured (few details were given). Evidence indicated that she had seen how the treadmills worked. The trial court granted summary judgment to the club, stating that “given plaintiff’s familiarity with the use and operation of treadmills, she assumed the obvious and inherent risks  attendant to their use.”


Case 2

In Butt v. Equinox 63rd Street (2016), Butt was injured while working on his bench press with a personal trainer. He had lifted 220 pounds and was injured when he attempted 240 pounds; he had lifted more weight in the past.

Equinox provided evidence that the plaintiff was an experienced weightlifter, that he understood the techniques involved and the inherent risks in the sport, and that he knew and appreciated the 230 to 240 pounds of weight the personal trainer had set up his last lift of the training session. He elected to attempt the bench press with the encouragement of the trainer. The court concluded that the plaintiff appreciated the risks, including the weight to be lifted, and that he voluntarily assumed the common and inherent risks associated with the sport

The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment ruling by the trial court.


Case 3

However, not all cases end happily for the health club. In Lik v. LA Fitness, Inc. (2016), Lik was injured while playing basketball at defendant’s health club. He alleged  that he suffered a knee injury after jumping up during a basketball game and landing on an alleged “defective floor board.”

Defendant argued the plaintiff assumed the inherent risks of the sport. Further, defendant asserted that plaintiff failed to provide evidence that if such defect existed, defendant had the required notice, either actual or constructive, prior to the occurrence. Defendants maintained that regular inspections were done prior to the incident which revealed no such issues regarding the flooring.

Assumption of Risk Issue

In regard to the assumption of risk issue, the court stated that it is fundamental that there is a duty and a breach of that duty. Participants in a sport or recreational activity consent to those “commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of a sport generally and flow from such participation.”  Owners continue “to owe a duty to exercise care to make conditions as safe as they appear to be” and if the risks of the activity are fully comprehended or perfectly obvious, the plaintiff has consented to them.  The court made it clear that the participant does not assume “concealed or unreasonable risks.”

The court held that in this case the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is not applicable and does not operate to bar plaintiff’s recovery because defective floorboards in the basketball court are not “usual dangers that are inherent in the sport” of basketball.

Notice Issue

Regarding the issue of actual and constructive notice, the defendant must offer some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when the plaintiff fell.

Defendant failed to satisfy its initial burden. It only referred to

daily “walk-throughs of the gym” during which he makes visual inspections of the facilities to make sure everything is alright. No records are kept of these inspections. Therefore, defendant offered no testimony from an employee working that day regarding the last time the gymnasium and basketball court were checked prior to plaintiff’s accident.

Subsequently, the court denied the health club’s motion for summary judgment.


Big injury … no waiver … New York State … All is not lost – there is still the old standby of Assumption of Risk.  But, from the Lik case, I hope you see the value of regular inspections and the keeping of records of those inspections.

Photo Credit: Thanks to cortneyvmartin at Flickr.

Read the Article

Recent Articles:


Within the Scope of Employment: Vicarious Liability and Maritime Law

By Doyice Cotten Any number of parties may be named as defendants in a negligence suit. The obvious defendant is the party that committed the act leading to the injury – generally an employee of an organization or corporation. The supervisor or administrator who serves as the superior of the employee is also frequently named. And commonly, the employer of the employee (generally the “deep pocket”)  is frequently named based on the doctrine of respondeat superior (also called vicarious liability.) The doctrine of respondeat superior states that “the negligence of the employee is imputed to the corporate entity if the employee was acting within the scope of the the employee’s responsibility and authority and if the act was not grossly negligent,... [read more]

Summary of State Agritourism Statutes

By Doyice Cotten In recent years, many states have added statutes providing liability protection for landowners making their agricultural land available for the purposes of agritourism. Currently (June, 2016), the author has found agritourism statutes in 22 states. The statutes vary considerably among states, as can be seen from examining the following table. Interpreting the Table First, the column headed Limits Liability for … (column 3) shows that almost all specify protection for injuries resulting from the inherent risks.... [read more]

AED – A Happy Ending or Another Tragedy?

By Doyice Cotten “The Davis School District and local school administrators have acted upon the recommendations of our department to place (defibrillators) within this school. The heroic efforts of a well-trained staff and a good maintenance program in keeping the batteries ready to go in this (defibrillator) clearly made a difference here today.” Layton Fire Department spokesman Doug Bitton   According to Deseretnews.com, 17 year-old Connor Moss is alive today thanks to two women who knew what to do in an emergency and the availability of a defibrillator.... [read more]

Some Important State Waiver Statutes

By Doyice Cotten Most state waiver law comes from court rulings but many state legislatures have passed statutes regarding liability waivers. Some statutes have a strong impact upon waivers in the state; others are less important, often affecting waivers for only one sport. A few of each are listed below: High Impact Statutes Louisiana La Civ Code Ann art 2004 states: Any clause is null that, in advance, excludes or limits the liability of one party for causing physical injury to the other party.... [read more]

Unforced Errors: The Scope of the Waiver MUST be Clear!!!

Doyice J. Cotten FACT: A well-written waiver willingly signed by an adult participant can protect the service provider from liability for the provider’s negligence in most states. FACT: Many waivers fail because of what might be termed “unforced errors” on the part of the writer in making clear the scope of the waiver. In this post, I am reporting several recent cases in which the waiver failed to protect the provider from negligence. The reader should be able to understand why the failure was preventable.... [read more]

We Know Delta and Greyhound are Common Carriers … But is a Zipline a Common Carrier in Illinois?

By Doyice Cotten April Dodge was a paying customer of Grafton Zipline Adventures when the braking system failed causing April to collide with a tree and suffer injury. She sued alleging that Grafton was negligent. Grafton claimed protection from the liability waiver signed by April prior to participation to which the plaintiff asserted that the waiver was unenforceable because Grafton is a common carrier and cannot exempt itself from liability for its negligence (Dodge v. Grafton Zipline Adventures,... [read more]