Lexplug logoLexplug

Grebing v. 24 Hour Fitness USA CA2/3

California Court of Appeal
234 Cal. App. 4th 631 (2015)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A pre-injury liability release for ordinary negligence in a recreational setting is enforceable. To overcome such a release, a plaintiff must demonstrate gross negligence, which requires evidence of a 'want of even scant care' or an 'extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct,' a standard not met by minor delays in equipment inspection or the use of improper but functional parts.


Facts:

  • On November 10, 2011, Timothy Grebing signed a membership agreement with 24 Hour Fitness which included a broad release of liability for injuries resulting from the gym's negligence.
  • The agreement specified that 24 Hour Fitness does not manufacture equipment and is providing recreational services, and thus may not be held liable for defective products.
  • Grebing signed an 'Upgrade Agreement' on December 15, 2011, which contained the identical liability release provision.
  • On May 9, 2012, while Grebing was using a 'low row machine,' a metal clip connecting the handlebar to the weight cable failed.
  • The handlebar broke free from the cable and struck Grebing in the forehead, causing injury.
  • Approximately 15 minutes before Grebing's injury, another gym member, Rene Lozoya, had reported a crooked clip on a different machine (a pull-down machine) to a manager.
  • Although 24 Hour Fitness had a policy of daily equipment inspections, the primary facilities technician was absent on the day of the accident.

Procedural Posture:

  • In October 2012, Timothy Grebing filed a complaint against 24 Hour Fitness in a California trial court, asserting claims for negligence, products liability, and breach of warranty.
  • 24 Hour Fitness moved for summary judgment, arguing that a written release signed by Grebing barred his claims.
  • Grebing opposed the motion, arguing that the release was invalid because 24 Hour Fitness was grossly negligent.
  • On February 28, 2014, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of 24 Hour Fitness, finding the release valid and no evidence of gross negligence.
  • Judgment was entered for 24 Hour Fitness on April 1, 2014.
  • Grebing (appellant) appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal (an intermediate appellate court).

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 fitness center's failure to replace an improper clip on an exercise machine within 15 minutes of receiving a complaint about a faulty clip on a different machine constitute gross negligence sufficient to invalidate a member's signed liability waiver?


Opinions:

Majority - Lavin, J.

No, the fitness center's conduct does not rise to the level of gross negligence. A release of liability for future gross negligence is unenforceable as a matter of public policy, but the evidence here only establishes, at best, ordinary negligence. Gross negligence requires a 'want of even scant care' or an 'extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.' The use of an incorrect but equally strong clip, combined with a 15-minute failure to inspect the entire gym after receiving a complaint about a different machine, does not meet this high standard. Furthermore, 24 Hour's established policy of daily inspections, even if imperfectly executed on the day of the accident, demonstrates that its conduct was not an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care. Because the release explicitly waived liability for ordinary negligence, it is enforceable and bars Grebing's claim. Additionally, the products liability claim fails because the dominant purpose of the membership agreement was the provision of fitness services, not the supply of a product.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the high threshold required to prove gross negligence and overcome a liability waiver in a recreational context. It clarifies that isolated operational failures, such as a short delay in maintenance or using an improper but functional part, will likely be classified as ordinary negligence covered by a release. The ruling provides significant protection to fitness centers and similar businesses by affirming that the existence of general safety policies can defeat a claim of gross negligence, even if those policies are not perfectly executed in a specific instance. The case solidifies the distinction between providing a service and supplying a product, shielding service providers like gyms from strict products liability claims related to the equipment they make available to customers.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Grebing v. 24 Hour Fitness USA CA2/3 (2015)

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