Featured Article:

Colorado Club Member Injured When He Steps onto a Moving Treadmill

By Doyice Cotten

Robert Wagner,  a Life Time Fitness client, suffered injury when he stepped onto a treadmill that was already in motion. No detail was given as to how the club was negligent (Wagner v. LTF Club Operations Company, Inc. (2019). Since Wagner failed to designate specific facts showing that there was a genuine issue for trial, there was no evidence that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Consequently, the trial judge granted summary judgment based on the LTF waiver of liability signed by Wagner.

The Waiver

In Jones v. Dressel (1981), the Colorado Supreme Court articulated four factors to use in determining whether an exculpatory clause is valid: 1) the existence of a duty to the public; 2) the nature of the service performed; 3) whether the contract was fairly entered into; and 4) whether the intention of the parties is expressed in clear and unambiguous language. In this case, both parties agree that the first three factors are satisfied here. There was no additional duty to the public, recreational facilities are not an essential public service, and the contract was fairly entered into. Wagner, however, claims the waiver language was not clear and unambiguous and that the intention of LTF to disclaim liability for its negligence was not clear.

It was, therefore, the job of the appellate court to decide whether the exculpatory intention of the parties is expressed in clear and unambiguous language in the waiver. The court first points out that the agreement states in bold, underlined, and capitalized text, that it is a “waiver of liability.”  Secondly, also in boldface font, the signer “agree[s] not to sue Life Time for, and waive, any claims . . . for any Injuries to [him or her] . . . which arise out of, result from, or are caused by any Ordinary NEGLIGENCE OF LIFE TIME.” And finally, the next paragraph consists of a detailed definition of negligence, thereby, providing the Wagner detail regarding the extent of the liability the Wagner was relinquishing. The definition read:

Negligence Claims include but are not limited to Life Time’s (1) negligent design, construction . . ., repair, maintenance, operation, supervision, monitoring, or provision of Life Time Premises and Services; (2) negligent failure to warn of or remove a hazardous, unsafe, dangerous or defective condition; (3) negligent failure to provide or keep premises in a reasonably safe condition. . . .

The appellant judge found the terms of the waiver are clear, and that the unambiguous intent of the parties was to relieve Life Time from liability for its ordinary negligence in operating its fitness club. Upon meeting the four Jones elements, the waiver was valid as a matter of law. Defendants were awarded costs.

This case illustrates the value of a waiver of liability. Although it was unclear as to how LTF was negligent, the waiver released LTF from all liability for ordinary negligence.

Read the Article

Recent Articles:

Lawsuit Illustrates a “How-to” Guide for Personal Trainers

By Doyice Cotten Personal trainers should recognize the potential for injury in their profession and strive to serve their clients safely and effectively. Gregory Pedersen, the personal trainer in Berisaj v. LTF Club Operations Company, Inc. (2019), was faced with a lawsuit by a client of 17 fitness sessions; the lawsuit alleged 1) negligence, 2) gross negligence, and 3) willful and wanton misconduct. Plaintiff Victor Berisaj, who had been a client of LTF since 2007,... [read more]

Test Your Legal IQ: Predict Whether the Court Enforced this Waiver

By Doyice Cotten Many waivers, even otherwise well-written ones, fail because the language can be interpreted in two ways. This case provides us with a good example of such a waiver (Fresnedo v. Porky’s Gym III, 2019). The judges read the waiver and came up with two diametrically opposed interpretations. Here are the facts of the incident, some pertinent Florida waiver rulings, the waiver itself, and the arguments of the two sides – one saying the plaintiff clearly waived his right to redress;... [read more]

AEDs Required in California Schools that Offer Interscholastic Athletics

By Doyice Cotten In 2018, California passed a law mandating that all public schools or charter schools that offer interscholastic athletics must have at least one automated external defibrillator (AED) – effective July 1, 2019. Interestingly, the legislature did not provide funding for the devices, but noted that existing law authorizes a public school to solicit and receive nonstate funds to acquire and maintain an automated external defibrillator (AED). There has been considerable complaint about the fact that this law requires an AED,... [read more]

Tough Mudder’s Waiver Prohibited by NY GOL § 5-326

By Doyice Cotten In the June 14 post (Do You Have a “Landmine” in Your Electronic Waiver?), we focused on electronic waivers. The case, Scotti v. Tough Mudder Inc. (2019), however, dealt also with whether the waiver was enforceable in light of New York’s General Obligations Law § 5-326. 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,... [read more]

Do You Have a “Landmine” in Your Electronic Waiver?

By Doyice Cotten Ten years ago, electronic waivers were the exception; now, they are the rule. A New York court recently ruled that an arbitration agreement in a Tough Mudder waiver was not enforceable (Scotti v. Tough Mudder Inc., 2019). In the discussion, the court gave an excellent update on the enforceability of  electronic waivers and pointed out some “landmines” of which providers need to be aware. Electronic Waiver Fundamentals The court provided some fundamentals that one should know about electronic waivers.... [read more]

Defective Rowing Machine & No “Out of Order” Sign — Waiver Protected

By Doyice Cotten AnneMichelle Johnson, a member of Gold’s Gym Rockies, LLC, sustained an injury when trying to use a rowing machine. She set her usual resistance, tried to pull, heard a pop in her back, and the pull bar did not move. She set resistance at zero, tried to pull again, and it did not move. About that time an employee came over and told her it was broken and he was there to fix it. She found her back was severely injured and filed a premises liability suit alleging negligence (Johnson v.... [read more]