It is the legal duty of every health and fitness club to provide safe and properly maintained defective and poses a danger to people using the facility, the club must remove the equipment or take suitable and proper precautions for the safety of individuals using it.
There are other considerations, as well, as Gold's Gym found out in Guerra v. Howard Beach Fitness Center Inc. and Gold's Gym [2011 NY Slip Op 51282U]. Geraldine Guerra was walking on one of the treadmills at Gold's Gym in Howard Beach, N.Y., when the machine's mat shifted off the roller, causing Guerra to fall down awkwardly and be thrown off the back of the treadmill. As a result, Guerra tore her ACL and sued the facility for negligence, claiming that the owners failed to maintain the treadmill in a reasonably safe and proper condition.
In response to Guerra's claim, the gym raised the defense that Guerra failed to provide evidence that it had actual or constructive notice of a defective condition with regard to the treadmill. In support of this defense, the gym argued that prior to the date of the accident, it had received no written or oral complaints about the treadmill. Gold's also reported that the treadmills, and all the machines, were inspected once a week, and if a problem were reported, it would be repaired immediately.
Gold's also argued that Guerra assumed any and all risks associated with using the treadmill, and that falling from a treadmill is an inherent risk in the activity. Finally, Gold's pointed to the fact that Guerra signed a waiver when she joined the club that released the company from liability for any injuries.
In rejecting the gym's position, the Supreme Court of Queens County held that the facility owner had failed to provide evidence sufficient to show that the specific treadmill in question had been inspected at any particular time prior to the plaintiff's accident. The gym's employees were not able to offer sufficient testimony as to specific dates of maintenance and safety checks, and the defendant failed to submit maintenance or inspection records for the treadmill.
As for the gym's other arguments, the court held that a participant could not be deemed to have voluntarily assumed concealed or unreasonably increased risks. Falling off of a treadmill due to a malfunctioning tread, the court concluded, is not a foreseeable risk that is inherent in exercising on a treadmill. Further, Guerra's signed waiver was held invalid and unenforceable under New York's General Obligations Law § 5-326, which the court noted is intended to "protect consumers from the effect of form releases printed on membership applications and similar documents when such releases are offered in connection with the use of a 'place of amusement or recreation' for which a fee is paid."
As the decision makes clear, a regular and thorough inspection of all equipment, and a written record of the dates of maintenance and inspection, would have satisfied this Gold's Gym franchise's duty to its patrons. If the gym owner had performed this simple risk management review, Gold's would likely have not ended up in court, let alone lost there.
