Featured Article:

Waiver Not Against Public Policy in Pennsylvania Health Club Slip & Fall Incident

By Doyice Cotten

Dolores Vinson, a member of LA Fitness, slipped and fell when she stepped on a wet mat. She sued the club for negligence in their maintenance (Vinson v. Fitness & Sports Clubs, LLC, 2018). The club claimed protection based on a liability waiver in the membership agreement. The trial court granted the LA Fitness motion for summary judgment.

Pennsylvania Law

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has named three conditions that must be met for a waiver to be enforceable.

1) It must not violate public policy.

2)  The contract must be related to the parties own private affairs.

3) Each party must be a free bargaining agent to the agreement so that the contract is not one of adhesion.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court (Seaton v. E. Windsor Speedway, Inc., 1990) has stated that a liability waiver violates “. . . public policy only when they involve a matter of interest to the public or the state. Such matters of interest to the public or the state include the employer-employee relationship, public service, public utilities, common carriers, and hospitals.” The Court set a high bar to clear before a court may invalidate a contract on public policy grounds:

It is only when a given policy is so obviously for or against the public health, safety, morals or welfare that there is a virtual unanimity of opinion in regard to it, that a court may constitute itself the voice of the community in so declaring [that the contract is against public policy].

Vinson contended that the Exculpatory Clause is invalid because it contravenes public policy – specifically, she claimed that the waiver was against public policy because the claim involves a vital matter of public health and safety. Vinson relied on Leidy v. Deseret Enterprises, Inc. (1977) in which the plaintiff was injured when a physical therapist at the spa did not follow the directions of the doctor. The court agreed that the waiver was against public policy because the therapist violated a statute regarding physical therapists; subsequently, the court supported the claim that the waiver was unconscionable.

In its defense, L.A. Fitness contended that the waiver did not violate public policy because it constituted a contract between private parties and did not involve any public entity or concern.  L.A. Fitness specifically pointed to this court’s recent decision in another slip and fall case (Toro v. Fitness International LLC., 2016). This court held that this same identical waiver was examined and found to not be contrary to public policy. The defendant also relied on Hinkal v. Pardoe (2016) in which a client was injured during a personal training session. The court again ruled the waiver was not against public policy.


The court stated that “Vinson was voluntarily engaged in recreational activity, attending the gym, and was subject to the Membership Agreement, an agreement between private parties.” She had produced no statute, administrative regulation, or legal precedent to support her case. Instead, she relied on mere suppositions of the public interest, which are insufficient to invalidate a contract provision for violation of public policy.

Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of L.A. Fitness.

Read the Article

Recent Articles:

Does Your Waiver Make any Promises to Your Clients?

By Doyice Cotten It is not uncommon in liability waivers for the writer to include such language as a promise of safety, an effort to make the activity safe, a promise of safe equipment, an assurance of good supervision, and/or assertion of well-trained staff or instructors.  However, as you will learn in this post, this is not a very good idea. While this case deals only with Alaska waiver law, the inclusion of such promises in your waiver  might bear reconsideration.... [read more]

How Long does a Waiver Last?

  By Doyice Cotten In a 2018 New Jersey waiver case (Weed v Sky N.J., LLC, 2018 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 410), the primary issue revolved around the enforceability of an arbitration agreement included in the liability waiver. There were two important questions addressed. First, what is the duration of a waiver (and the arbitration agreement)? And second, who can sign a waiver on behalf of a minor. Under New Jersey law, it is well established that parental waivers (a waiver signed on behalf of a minor by a parent or a legal guardian) are unenforceable.... [read more]

Two Health Club Cases Clarify Delaware Waiver Law

By Doyice Cotten Reminder: There is a new Fitness Law Academy Newsletter designed specifically for fitness professionals. It is written by Dr. JoAnn Eickhoff-Shemek, a fitness industry authority. And the best news of all —  its FREE!.    Click here for your free subscription!   djc In 2016, the Delaware Supreme Court addressed a case in which a Planet Fitness health club member was injured when a cable broke on a seated rowing machine (Ketler v.... [read more]

Hot Air Balloons: Is a Balloon a Common Carrier in California?

  By Doyice Cotten The issue as to whether an activity or mode of transportation is a common carrier can determine the duty owed to passengers. A recent California case (Grotheer v. Escape Adventures, Inc., 2017), addressed the issue of whether a hot air balloon is a common carrier. The court defined a common carrier of persons as anyone “who offers to the public to carry persons.” (Civ. Code, § 2168.) The duty that a common carrier owes to its clientele depends upon whether the ride is gratuitous or if there is a fee charged.... [read more]

Connecticut Court Admits Waiver to Show Plaintiff Knew the Inherent Risk of Horseback Riding

By Doyice J. Cotten Stefana Pecher took riding lesson at Showtime Stables which was owned by Rhea Distefano. After about six lessons, the horse ridden by Pecher was acting lazy, was not obeying commands, and was reacting slowly. She was told by the instructor to use the crop to tap lightly on the shoulder of the horse; the horse bolted, causing her to fall and injure herself. During the trial, the defense entered into evidence a photo of a warning sign posted at eye level at the barn door and a liability waiver signed by the plaintiff.... [read more]

Court in New York Ski Case Rules that Parental Waivers Allowing Minors to Ski are Valid & Enforceable

By Doyice Cotten Bryan DiFrancesco’s son was injured while on a ski lift with a ski instructor employed by the defendant Win-Sum Ski Corp [DBA Holiday Valley, Inc.]. The uncle of the boy had signed a waiver of liability and assumption of inherent risks so that the 5 year-old could ski. The boy fell from the lift and sustained severe injuries. The father subsequently filed a suit in federal court against the ski resort on behalf of the boy (DiFrancesco v.... [read more]