By John E. Tyrrell; Patrick J. McStravick and Kelly J. Woy, of Ricci Tyrrell Johnson & Grey
As folks head back to the gym as the COVID-19 pandemic subsides, we are reminded that injuries can occur, even under the supervision of a personal trainer. Through a strenuous legal “workout,” the Southern District of New York (“Court”) recently ruled in favor of a gym owner as not owing a duty based on the assumption of risk doctrine. Pryce v. Town Sports Int’l, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62977, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021).
On the morning of July 2, 2015, 51-year-old Simone Pryce (“Mrs. Pryce”) arrived at New York Sports Club (“NYSC”) for a training session with her personal trainer, Jonathan Reyes (“Reyes”). Id. at *10. About halfway through the session, Reyes demonstrated a new exercise called the “core diagonal crossover,” which required Mrs. Pryce to lift a medicine ball from her chest to above her shoulder while bending her knee. Id. at *11. When Mrs. Pryce began the exercise, Reyes stood within three feet of her in order to observe and, if necessary, correct her form. Id. at *12-13. At some point during the exercise, Reyes walked approximately twelve feet away from Mrs. Pryce to talk to a patron at the gym. Id. at *13. After completing two or three repetitions of the final set, Mrs. Pryce felt a pull in her shoulder. Id.
After her session, Mrs. Pryce began to feel sore in her shoulder. Id. at 13-14. At first, Mrs. Pryce believed her pain to be the usual soreness she experienced after training sessions. Id. at *14. However, Mrs. Pryce sought medical attention when the pain continued for twelve days. Id. The medical examination showed that she needed surgery followed by physical therapy. Id. at *15. Even after the surgery, Mrs. Pryce still had issues with her shoulder, specifically experiencing twinges and having difficulty completing ordinary tasks. Id. at *17-18. Not only did she suffer physically, she also suffered financially by means of lost income and out-of-pocket medical expenses. Id.
On June 28, 2018, Mrs. Pryce brought a negligence claim against NYSC[1] to recover damages for the shoulder injury she suffered during her personal training session. Id. at *1. Specifically, Mrs. Pryce alleged that Reyes briefly left her unsupervised while she was performing the “core diagonal crossover” and thereby breached a duty to ensure a safe exercise environment, which breach proximately caused her injury. Id. at *1-2. The case proceeded to a bench trial held over four days before the Honorable Katherine Polk Failla.
The first issue presented to the Court was whether NYSC was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its assumption of risk defense under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c)[2]. Id. at *36. The Court emphasized “that ‘[t]he application of the doctrine of assumption of risk is generally a question of fact to be resolved by a jury.’” Pryce, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62977, at *39 (quoting Layden v. Plante, 957 N.Y.S.2d 458, 461 (3d Dep’t 2012)). Specifically, a dispute existed as to whether Reyes unreasonably heightened the risks to which Mrs. Pryce was exposed beyond those usually inherent in weightlifting. Pryce, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62977, at *39. Although the record suggested that Mrs. Pryce exercised with weights voluntarily and was aware that such movements carry an inherent risk of injury, the Court could not ignore the fact that Mrs. Pryce was new to lifting weights and was paying for special instruction from Reyes. Id. at *39-40. Thus, the Court did not grant NYSC judgment as a matter of law. Id. at *40.
Judge Polk Failla then decided the merits of the claim as a factfinder. New York law provides that the assumption of risk doctrine is “not an absolute defense, but rather a measure of the defendant’s duty of care.” Id. at *33 (citing Morgan v. State, 90 N.Y.2d 471, 484 (1997)); see also Turcotte v. Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432, 438 (1986) (“[W]hen a plaintiff assumes the risk of participating in a sporting event, the defendant is relieved of a legal duty to the plaintiff; and being under no duty, he cannot be charged with negligence[.]”). Generally, a plaintiff assumes a risk if he or she is aware of the dangerous condition and the resultant risk. Pryce, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62977, at *35. It is not necessary, however, for a plaintiff to prove that he or she foresaw the exact manner in which injury occurred. Id. Citing four reasons, the Court found that Mrs. Pryce failed to establish facts indicating that NYSC breached a duty of care, and thus she assumed the risk of injury and was not entitled to recovery. Id. at *41-42.
The first basis relied upon by the Court was the NYSC membership agreement which Mrs. Pryce signed. Id. at *42-43. By signing the membership agreement, Mrs. Pryce admitted that she understood that “[a]ny strenuous athletic or physical activity involves certain risks,” and “that there are certain risks associated with the use of a health club and the use of fitness equipment[.]” Id. at *42 (quoting the NYSC membership agreement). Further, Mrs. Pryce acknowledged her agreement that exercise carries a risk of injury even when conducted under the supervision of a trainer. Id. Understanding this risk, Mrs. Pryce voluntarily joined NYSC, signed up for personal training, and performed the exercises Reyes prescribed for her. Id. Importantly, Mrs. Pryce failed to present evidence that, “Reyes, by either action or inaction, concealed, misrepresented, or unreasonably increased the commonly-understood risks to Mrs. Pryce of her use of NYSC’s facility and equipment.” Id.
Second, the Court found nothing in the record suggesting that the “core diagonal crossover” was an inherently dangerous exercise, that it was contraindicated specifically for Mrs. Pryce given her known prior injuries, or that Mrs. Pryce expressed concerns about performing it. Id. at *43. Instead, the record indicated that Mrs. Pryce was not lifting a large amount of weight, not making any sort of jerking motion, and not performing an exercise that would likely exacerbate an underlying condition of which Reyes was aware; the “core diagonal crossover” was a steady exercise and appeared appropriately tailored for a client of the same fitness level as Mrs. Pryce. Id. at *44.
Third, the Court noted that Mrs. Pryce was unable to identify the mechanism by which she was injured and lacked evidence that Reyes did anything improper. Id. She offered no evidence that he demonstrated how to perform the exercise improperly, that the weight was too heavy, or that she utilized improper form. Id. at *44-45. Instead, Mrs. Pryce testified that Reyes demonstrated the exercise to her and observed her performing the exercise with the proper form, that she did the exercise as instructed, and that she was able to complete two sets of it. Id. at *45. Furthermore, the fact that Mrs. Pryce struggled with the exercise towards the end of each set was unconvincing to the Court as having any relevance to the cause of the injury. Id.
Fourth, since there was no evidence that Mrs. Pryce had improper form or too heavy of a weight, the Court noted that it was unclear what Reyes could have done to prevent her injury even had he been standing right next to her. Id. at *46. Notwithstanding Reyes’s testimony asserting that it would be unprofessional and potentially unsafe for a trainer to lose sight of a client mid-session, the Court found this was not enough for Mrs. Pryce to prove that he allowed her to perform the exercise in an unsafe manner. Id. Based upon the facts presented at trial, the Court could not conclude that, “Reyes’s conduct, even if a deviation from best practices, unreasonably increased Mrs. Pryce’s risk of injury.” Id. at *47.
The Court left open the possibility for liability of a gym owner in a scenario where a plaintiff can present evidence that he or she was using bad form or too much weight during an exercise and the personal trainer could have prevented it if in close proximity. Mrs. Pryce could not prove that any of these scenarios occurred. Otherwise, the result could have been different.
John E. Tyrrell is a founding Member of Ricci Tyrrell Johnson & Grey who has spent decades defending the unique risks presented by spectator events and participation sports.
Nicholas Rollo is a student at Rutgers Law School and a Summer Associate at Ricci Tyrrell Johnson & Grey
[1] Gym owned by Defendant Town Sports International, LLC, d/b/a/ “NYSC”.
[2] FED. R. CIV. P. 52(c).
