Jimenez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.
237 Cal.App.4th 546 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A release of liability is unenforceable against a claim of gross negligence, which may be demonstrated by an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct, such as deliberately violating a manufacturer's safety instructions. Furthermore, a release is invalid if procured by fraudulent misrepresentation, which can include non-verbal conduct intended to deceive a party who is known to be unable to read the contract.
Facts:
- Etelvina Jimenez, who could not read or speak English, sought to join a 24 Hour Fitness (24 Hour) gym.
- The membership manager, Justin Wilbourn, knew Jimenez could not read or speak English but proceeded with the sign-up without a translator.
- Wilbourn used gestures mimicking exercise and pointed to the monthly fee on his computer screen to explain the agreement, then pointed to the signature lines.
- Jimenez signed the membership agreement, which contained a broad liability release provision, believing she was only agreeing to pay the monthly fee.
- Approximately two years later, Jimenez was exercising on a treadmill at the 24 Hour facility.
- The treadmill manufacturer's owner's manual and assembly guide both specified that a minimum safety zone of six feet was required directly behind the treadmill for user safety.
- 24 Hour had placed a leg exercise machine with an exposed steel foot approximately three feet and ten inches behind the treadmill Jimenez was using.
- Jimenez fell backwards off the moving treadmill, struck her head on the leg exercise machine, and sustained catastrophic head injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Etelvina and Pedro Jimenez filed a complaint against defendant 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. in a California trial court for premises liability, negligence, and loss of consortium.
- 24 Hour filed an answer, raising the liability release signed by Etelvina as an affirmative defense.
- 24 Hour moved for summary judgment, arguing the release barred all of plaintiffs' claims as a matter of law.
- The trial court granted 24 Hour's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the release was enforceable and that 24 Hour's conduct did not amount to gross negligence.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
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 liability release signed by a gym member bar a negligence claim where there is evidence that the gym's conduct constituted gross negligence and that the member's signature was obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation?
Opinions:
Majority - Murray, J.
No, the liability release does not necessarily bar the claim because triable issues of material fact exist as to both gross negligence and fraudulent misrepresentation. A release of liability is unenforceable against a claim of gross negligence as a matter of public policy. Gross negligence is defined as a 'want of even scant care' or an 'extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.' The evidence showed that 24 Hour deliberately placed equipment in violation of the treadmill manufacturer’s explicit minimum safety requirements. A jury could reasonably conclude that ignoring a six-foot safety directive and instead providing less than four feet of space, thereby creating a hazardous condition, constitutes an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct. Additionally, a release is invalid if procured by fraud. Here, Wilbourn knew Jimenez could not read English. His non-verbal communication—gesturing about exercise and pointing only to the price—could be found by a jury to be an affirmative misrepresentation that the agreement's scope was limited to payment for gym access. This conduct, especially given the language barrier, creates a triable issue of fact as to whether Jimenez was fraudulently induced to sign the release.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that liability waivers are not absolute and clarifies the threshold for what may constitute gross negligence. By holding that a deliberate violation of a manufacturer's express safety standards can create a triable issue of gross negligence, the court signals that such waivers will not protect businesses from conduct that actively increases the risk of harm beyond what is inherent in an activity. The ruling also significantly broadens the concept of fraudulent misrepresentation to include non-verbal acts, particularly where there is a known language barrier and a disparity in bargaining power. This places a greater responsibility on businesses to ensure genuine and informed consent when executing contracts with vulnerable parties.
Unlock the full brief for Jimenez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.