A Pennsylvania state appeals court has affirmed the ruling of a lower court, which dismissed the claim of a member of a fitness club, who sued the club for negligence after she “tripped and fell on a wet floor mat.” On appeal, plaintiff Delores Vinson unsuccessfully argued that the exculpatory provision in the member agreement she signed was “unenforceable” because the incident raised “public policy issues.”
The incident occurred at an L.A. Fitness club in Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania on Oct. 1, 2013. After the fall, described above, she allegedly suffered “serious and permanent personal injuries.” Vinson sued on July 28, 2015.
The defendant moved for summary judgment, and on Aug. 11, 2016, the trial court granted the motion on the basis of the exculpatory provision.
Vinson appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion, when it “improperly” granted the defendant’s motion, “where there exists a genuine dispute as to material fact as to whether important public policy issues are implicated and render the exculpatory provision unenforceable.”
In its analysis, the appeals court wrote that Vinson “specifically asserts that her claim involves the maintenance of facilities, which concerns the obvious health and safety of the members of the public.” She relied heavily on Leidy v. Deseret Enterprises, Inc., 381 A.2d 164 (Pa.Super. 1977)
The defendants countered that the provision does not violate public policy because the agreement constituted “a contract between private parties and did not involve any public entity or concern,” citing Toro v. Fitness International LLC, 150 A3d 968 (Pa. Super. 2016).
The appeals court began by noting that there is a “high bar” when it comes to exculpatory provisions violating public policy. To reach that bar, a policy must be “so obviously … against the public health, safety, morals or welfare that there is a virtual unanimity of opinion in regard to it, that a court must constitute itself the voice of the community in so declaring that the contract is against public policy.”
The problem with the aforementioned Leidy is that it was on “entirely different footing” than the instance case, according to the appeals court. It involved a physical therapist at a spa, whose treatment of a patron ran counter to a doctor’s directives. The spa unsuccessfully leaned on the exculpatory provision as a defense.
“Here, Vinson was voluntarily engaged in recreational activity, attending the gym, and was subject to the membership agreement, an agreement between private parties,” wrote the appeals court. Vinson has not identified any statutory provision, no administrative regulation, or any legal precedent to support her claim that (the provision) was unenforceable.”
Delores Vinson v. Fitness a& Sports Clubs, LLC; Super. Ct. Pa.; 2018 PA Super 113; 5/4/18
