An Illinois state appeals court has affirmed the ruling of a lower court that the member of a fitness club, who was rendered a quadriplegic after suffering a freak injury while exercising at a club, is subject to a membership agreement he signed when joining the club, which contained “broad exculpatory terms” shielding the club from such litigation.
The clause “was clear, explicit, and unequivocally stated that a member’s use of the equipment involved risks of injury, including injury leading to the death of the member, and the member assumed full responsibility for such risks,” according to the court.
In 2009, plaintiff Sahal Hussein was working out at an L.A. Fitness facility located near downtown Chicago when he suffered a devastating injury while “making unsupervised use of an ‘assisted dip/chin’ exercise machine.”
Hussein sued L.A. Fitness International, L.L.C., operator of a national chain of fitness clubs. He claimed the defendant breached its duty of ordinary care “by failing to maintain and inspect its fitness equipment and by failing to ‘appropriately and properly’ monitor, supervise, or instruct club members who used the equipment.” The circuit court of Cook County determined the aforementioned clause warranted the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice and the denial of his motion for reconsideration. Hussein appealed, arguing that the court “misconstrued the contract and the law and failed to consider his affidavit establishing material questions which could not be resolved on the pleadings.”
The appeals court first reviewed the membership agreement, which contained the following language, which appeared on the reverse side of the page and was emphasized by a black frame and bold font:
“IMPORTANT: RELEASE AND WAIVER OF LIABILITY AND INDEMNITY. You hereby acknowledge and agree that Member’s use of L.A. Fitness’ facilities, services, equipment or premises involves risks of injury to persons *** and Member assumes full responsibility for such risks. *** Member hereby releases and holds L.A. Fitness *** harmless from all liability to Member *** for any loss or damage, and forever gives up any claim or demands therefore, on account of injury to Member’s person or property, including injury leading to the death of Member, whether caused by the active or passive negligence of L.A. Fitness or otherwise, to the fullest extent permitted by law, while Member is in, upon, or about L.A. Fitness premises or using any L.A. Fitness facilities, services or equipment. *** Member has read this release and waiver of liability ***.”
Hussein argued the membership agreement “is confusing, that the fitness services agreement is similarly flawed, and that the two contracts are contradictory … and should not be enforced.”
The appeals court disagreed.
“The clause was clear, explicit, and unequivocally stated that the ‘Member’s use of L.A. Fitness’ *** equipment *** involves risks of injury, … including injury leading to the death of Member,’ and ‘Member assumes full responsibility for such risks.’
“Hussein was on notice of the range of dangers he was exposing himself to, that he had assumed the risk of injury, and that he should exercise a greater degree of caution in order to minimize those risks.”
The appeals court also dispatched with the plaintiff’s claims that there are certain “material defects” in the L.A. Fitness membership agreement, which render the exculpatory clause unclear and unenforceable. For instance, he contends that before he executed the membership agreement, only the payment and cancellation terms were explained to him and he was not specifically advised that the contract included liability release language.”
The court went on to note that Hussein “has not cited any authority indicating L.A. Fitness was under a duty to explain any part of the contract to him or that he can avoid the effect of the contract by claiming that he did not read or understand it before signing it.”
It acknowledged that “upholding the health club’s exculpatory clause in this instance leads to a harsh result. Nevertheless, the law dictates that we reject Hussein’s contentions that this portion of the membership agreement is unenforceable due to its wording or on public policy grounds. We affirm the ruling of the circuit court that the contract affirmatively barred Hussein’s lawsuit against L.A. Fitness.”
Sahal Hussein v. L.A. Fitness International, L.L.C., d/b/a Pro Results; App. Ct. Ill., First Dist, Fifth Div.; No. 1-12-1426, 2013 IL App (1st) 121426; 2013 Ill. App. LEXIS 156; 3/22/13
