LA FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC. v. Mayer
980 So. 2d 550, 2008 WL 1805778 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A business owner's duty to render aid to a business invitee experiencing a medical emergency is satisfied by summoning professional medical assistance within a reasonable time and does not include an obligation to perform skilled medical procedures like CPR or to have an automated external defibrillator (AED) on the premises.
Facts:
- Alessio Tringali was a member of an L.A. Fitness health club.
- On April 3, 2003, Tringali suffered a cardiac arrest and collapsed while using a stepping machine at the facility.
- An L.A. Fitness employee, Robert Strayer, heard a call for help and instructed the receptionist to call 911.
- Strayer, who was certified in CPR, ran to Tringali and assessed his condition.
- Strayer observed Tringali bleeding from a head cut, shaking, and foaming at the mouth; he felt a faint pulse at the wrist.
- Believing Tringali was having a seizure or stroke and might have a head or neck injury from the fall, Strayer decided not to perform CPR, fearing it could worsen Tringali's condition.
- Paramedics arrived on the scene within approximately three to six minutes of being called.
- Alessio Tringali subsequently died.
Procedural Posture:
- Julianna Tringali Mayer, as personal representative of Alessio Tringali's estate, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against L.A. Fitness in a Florida trial court.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of the estate, finding L.A. Fitness 85% negligent and the deceased 15% comparatively negligent.
- The trial court denied L.A. Fitness's post-trial motions and entered a final judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $619,650.
- L.A. Fitness (Appellant) appealed the judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, and Mayer (Appellee) filed a cross-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 health club's duty of reasonable care to a patron experiencing a medical emergency require its employees to administer cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or the business to have an automated external defibrillator (AED) on its premises?
Opinions:
Majority - Taylor, J.
No. A health club's duty of reasonable care is fulfilled by promptly summoning professional medical assistance. The court reasoned that the common law duty to render aid to an invitee, as established in cases like Starling v. Fisherman's Pier, Inc. and outlined in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A, requires a proprietor to take reasonable, minimal steps to safeguard an injured person. This duty is satisfied by securing professional medical assistance and does not extend to performing skilled medical procedures like CPR, which is considered more than simple 'first aid.' The court also rejected the 'negligent undertaking' theory, holding that merely assessing a person's condition does not create a duty to perform a specific medical procedure, especially where the assessment did not worsen the victim's condition or cause others to refrain from offering aid. Finally, the court noted there is no statutory or common law duty for a business to possess an AED.
Concurring - Stevenson, J.
No. The judge concurred with the majority and wrote separately to emphasize that the negligent undertaking doctrine cannot apply in this case. For the doctrine to be triggered, a person must have voluntarily undertaken an act. Here, the L.A. Fitness employee, Strayer, made a decision not to perform CPR. Because no undertaking to perform CPR ever occurred, there can be no liability for negligently breaching a duty that was never assumed.
Dissenting - Polen, J.
Yes. While agreeing that L.A. Fitness had no duty to have an AED, the dissent argued that the question of whether the health club breached its duty of care was a matter for the jury. The dissent focused on the negligent undertaking theory, reasoning that once the employee, Strayer, undertook to assess Tringali's condition to determine if CPR was necessary, he assumed a duty to perform that assessment with reasonable care. A jury could have properly found that Strayer was negligent in his assessment and subsequent inaction, and therefore the jury's verdict should be affirmed.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and limits the scope of a business owner's duty to aid injured patrons in Florida. By establishing that the duty is satisfied by promptly calling 911, the court sets a clear and attainable standard that protects businesses from liability for not performing complex medical interventions. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to argue that businesses have a duty to provide on-site medical treatment or equipment like AEDs. The ruling reinforces the distinction between basic first aid and skilled medical procedures, firmly placing the responsibility for the latter on professional emergency responders, not on the lay employees of a business, regardless of their training.
