Lexplug logoLexplug

Benedek v. PLC SANTA MONICA, LLC

California Court of Appeal
104 Cal. App. 4th 1351, 129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 197 (2002)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A broadly worded liability waiver in a recreational contract that explicitly releases a business from liability for any personal injury sustained on its premises, 'whether using exercise equipment or not,' is enforceable against all forms of the business's negligence, including those unrelated to the primary recreational activity.


Facts:

  • Tom Benedek was a member of a health club owned by PLC Santa Monica, LLC, operating as Pritikin Longevity Center and Spa.
  • In September 1998, Benedek signed a new two-page membership agreement required by Pritikin.
  • The agreement contained a 'Waiver of Liability' clause, stating it was a 'complete release of any responsibility for personal injuries ... sustained by any MEMBER ... while on the ... SPA premises, whether using exercise equipment or not.'
  • On March 28, 2000, before beginning his workout, Benedek was inside the health club.
  • He noticed a television was facing the wrong way and touched the rack it was on to adjust it.
  • The television began to slide off the rack, and Benedek injured his knee while attempting to prevent it from falling on him.

Procedural Posture:

  • Tom Benedek sued PLC Santa Monica, LLC ('Pritikin') in a trial court, alleging negligence and premises liability.
  • Pritikin moved for summary judgment, arguing that the written release in the membership agreement barred Benedek's claim.
  • The trial court granted the summary judgment motion in favor of Pritikin, finding the release to be clear and unambiguous.
  • A final judgment was entered in favor of Pritikin.
  • Benedek, as appellant, filed a timely notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal, Second District.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a broad liability waiver in a health club membership agreement, which releases the club from liability for any personal injury sustained on the premises 'whether using exercise equipment or not,' bar a member's negligence claim for an injury that occurred on the premises but was not directly related to an exercise activity?


Opinions:

Majority - Grignon, Acting P.J.

Yes. A clear, unambiguous, and explicit liability waiver in a health club membership agreement that releases the club from liability for any personal injury sustained on its premises, regardless of whether exercise equipment is being used, is enforceable against the member's negligence claim. The court's role is to interpret the express language of the release. Here, the phrase 'whether using exercise equipment or not' unambiguously broadens the scope of the waiver beyond injuries strictly related to fitness activities to encompass general premises liability. Unlike cases where releases were found ambiguous and limited to fitness-related risks, this waiver was explicit. The purpose of the release was to gain access to the facilities, and the injury occurred on those facilities, making the negligence reasonably related to the purpose of the release as defined by its own broad terms. There is no public policy that opposes private, voluntary transactions where one party agrees to shoulder a risk the law would otherwise place on another.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the principle that the scope of a liability release is determined by its express contractual language, not by the inherent risks of the underlying activity. It serves as a strong precedent for businesses in recreational industries, demonstrating that a carefully and broadly drafted waiver can successfully shield them from general premises liability, not just liability for activity-specific injuries. For future cases, this ruling emphasizes that courts will enforce clear and unambiguous exculpatory clauses as written, placing a heavy burden on plaintiffs to find ambiguity in the contract's text. It also serves as a warning to consumers that signing such agreements can waive their right to sue for a wide range of potential injuries.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Benedek v. PLC SANTA MONICA, LLC (2002)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"