A federal judge from the Western District of New York has granted an exercise equipment manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment, effectively dismissing the cross-claims of a reseller of fitness equipment for contribution and indemnity.
On May 16, 2004, plaintiff Louis Bloom was working out at a fitness center located at The Lodge at Woodcliff, using a Roman chair manufactured by ProMaxima Manufacturing Company and sold to Woodcliff Associates LLC, d/b/a The Lodge at Woodcliff by M-F Athletic in August 2000. The Roman chair was a piece of exercise equipment that the plaintiff had successfully used three to four times per week for seven years. However, this time, when the plaintiff put his legs under the foot rest T bar on the Roman chair, the T bar came out, and the plaintiff fell head first to the floor sustaining injuries.
ProMaxima assembled, wrapped and shipped the chair on a truck to Woodcliff directly from its facilities. ProMaxima did not provide any instruction manual, user guide or written information on the use of the Roman chair. ProMaxima designed the Roman chair in 1981 or 1982 and, the chair, as designed, has a foot restraint bar that can be raised or lowered into a sleeve to fit the user’s personal preference. A pin is slid through one of the holes on the sleeve and into one of the holes on the restraint bar to lock it in position, but the design of the chair precludes seeing the hole in the restraint bar, and, consequently, the user must rely on the audible “click” of the spring-loaded pin to know it has gone into a hole. Unfortunately, it is possible to put the restraining pin into a hole below the restraint bar and still hear the “click” as the spring pushes it into place, but in that position, the pin does not engage the restraint bar. Woodcliff claimed that the plaintiff must have experienced that scenario.
The case was tried to a jury in early 2010. During the trial, the plaintiff reached a settlement with M-F Athletic, the reseller. On February 2, 2010, the jury reached a verdict of “no cause” against ProMaxima. Although the jury did specifically find that there was “a failure to warn,” it determined that the plaintiff had not “proven that any defect in the ProMaxima Roman Chair because of a failure to warn was a substantial factor causing the accident to Louis Bloom.”
The post-trial motions centered on whether M-F Athletic should voluntarily dismiss its indemnification claim against ProMaxima with prejudice or without prejudice. ProMaxima sought a dismissal with prejudice (meaning it could not re-file the suit); while M-F Athletic sought one without prejudice, since it planned to seek indemnification in a new action in Texas. The court found that ProMaxima’s argument was “persuasive.”
Specifically, the court highlighted ProMaxima’s argument that “a valid indemnification claim requires that ProMaxima be liable to the plaintiff, and that since the jury determined that ProMaxima was not liable for the injury to Mr. Bloom, the doctrine of claim preclusion blocks M-F Athletic’s indemnification claim against it. The court agrees.”
The court continued: “M-F Athletic is attempting to use its unilateral decision to settle the Blooms’ claims against it as a basis for assessing liability against ProMaxima, notwithstanding that the jury decided ProMaxima was not liable. … (T)his would result in an anomalous consequence, i.e., allowing M-F Athletic to proceed against ProMaxima would result in an ‘undue vexatiousness’ on M-F Athletic’s part and the duplicative expense of relitigation. For those reasons, the Court denies M-F Athletic’s motion to dismiss without prejudice and grants ProMaxima’s motion to dismiss with prejudice.”
Louis Bloom v. Promaxima Manufacturing Company; W.D.N.Y.; 05-CV-6735-CJS, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 581; 1/4/11
Attorneys of Record: (for defendants) Charles D. Cole, Jr., Esq., Lon VanDusen Hughes, Esq., Newman Fitch Altheim Myers, P.C., New York, NY. Robert M. Shaddock, Esq., Hiscock & Barclay LLP, Rochester, NY.
