Court Finds Fitness Club Did Enough To Protect Member from Injury

Jan 1, 2010

A federal judge has granted a fitness club’s motion for summary judgment in a case where the manufacturer and reseller of fitness equipment claimed the fitness club was negligent when a member suffered an injury using the Roman Chair.
 
In granting summary judgment to Woodcliff Associates LLC, d/b/a The Lodge at Woodcliff, the court found that ProMaxima Manufacturing, Ltd., and M-F Athletic Company, Inc., failed to show that Woodcliff breached a duty of care owed to the member under New York law and that the breach was a proximate cause of the member’s injuries.
 
The injury occurred on May 16, 2004, when plaintiff Louis Bloom was working on the Roman Chair manufactured by ProMaxima and sold to Woodcliff by M-F Athletic in August 2000. The Roman Chair was a piece of equipment that Bloom had previously used without incident. However, on this occasion, when Bloom 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.
 
Bloom had been a member of the health club at Woodcliff since January 1995 and maintained that membership through the date of the incident at issue in this lawsuit. At the beginning of his membership, the plaintiff was given an orientation to the equipment by a certified personal trainer. Bloom recalls that the Roman Chair was not initially in Woodcliff’s health club when he first joined, but it had been there two or three years when the injury occurred.
 
ProMaxima had assembled, wrapped, and shipped the chair directly to Woodcliff by truck. ProMaxima did not provide any instruction manual, user guide, or written information on the use of the Roman chair. From the time of its receipt, Woodcliff had no complaints from users of the Roman Chair and no modifications or repairs had been made to it. Once per year, Woodcliff had all the equipment in its fitness center, including the Roman Chair, inspected by an independent company.
 
In its motion, Woodcliff maintained that it was not negligent with regard to its ownership, care or maintenance of the Roman Chair or with respect to its operation of the health club, and consequently it is entitled to summary judgment.
 
In opposing the motion, both ProMaxima and M-F Athletic relied on the American College of Sports Medicine Health/Fitness Facility Standards and Guidelines. ProMaxima points to those standards as “some evidence of negligence” and alleges that Woodcliff violated a number of the standards set out in the Guidelines. With respect to these Guidelines, ProMaxima contends that Woodcliff was negligent because: Woodcliff failed to instruct and supervise the plaintiff in the use of the Roman Chair; Woodcliff had no one on the fitness floor at the time of the plaintiff’s accident; and Woodcliff had no fitness professional at the facility.
 
The court noted that New York state law requires that “in premises liability cases alleging an injury caused by a defective condition, the plaintiff must show that the landowner either created the defective condition, or had actual or constructive notice of the defective condition for such a period of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, it should have corrected it ( see, Hollinger v. Chestnut Ridge Racquet Corp., 227 A.D.2d 380, 642 N.Y.S.2d 76). Abrams v. Powerhouse Gym Merrick, Inc., 284 A.D.2d 487, 487-488, 727 N.Y.S.2d 135, 136 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.,2001). Moreover, under most circumstances, the opinion of a qualified expert that a plaintiff’s injuries were caused by a deviation from relevant industry standards would preclude a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants (see, e.g., Trimarco v. Klein, 56 N.Y.2d 98, 436 N.E.2d 502, 451 N.Y.S.2d 52).” Murphy v. Conner, 199 A.D.2d 929, 606 N.Y.S.2d 790 (N.Y. App. Div. 3rd Dept.1993) (emphasis added).
 
“The evidentiary proof before the Court on this motion shows that Woodcliff neither ‘created the defective condition, nor had actual or constructive notice of the defective condition for such a period of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, it should have corrected it.’ Abrams v. Powerhouse Gym Merrick, Inc., 284 A.D.2d at 487-488. Furthermore, the Court finds that ProMaxima’s and M-F Athletic’s reliance on the Guidelines to create an issue of material fact is misplaced. The Court finds as a matter of law that the Guidelines are not relevant industry standards, since, as Woodcliff points out, the Guidelines specifically state:
 
“’These standards are not intended to give rise to duty of care or to establish a standard of care; rather, they are performance criteria derived from a consensus of ACSM leaders…. Such guidelines are not standards, nor are they applicable in every situation or circumstance; rather, they are illustrative tools that ACSM believes should be considered by health and fitness experts.’
 
“It is undisputed that Woodcliff exercised reasonable care to have the Roman Chair inspected annually and that the plaintiff had successfully used that piece of equipment many times in the past without incident. No proof has been submitted raising a material issue of fact as to whether Woodcliff was negligent and whether any alleged negligence on its part was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s unfortunate accident. In short, neither plaintiff, ProMaxima or M-F Athletic, has shown that Woodcliff breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff under New York law and that the breach was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Consequently, Woodcliff is entitled to summary judgment.”
 
Louis Bloom And Nancy Bloom v. Promaxima Manufacturing Company; W.D.N.Y.; 05-CV-6735-CJS, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104457; 11/9/09
 
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Angelo G. Faraci, Esq., Matthew F. Belanger, Esq., Faraci Lange LLP, Rochester, NY. (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. Edward P. Hourihan, Jr., Esq., Bond Schoeneck & King PLLC (Roch), Fairport, NY. Amy L. DiFranco, Esq., Glenn E. Pezzulo, Esq., Culley, Marks, Tanenbaum & Pezzulo, Rochester, NY.
 


 

Articles in Current Issue