Leon v. Family Fitness Center ( 107), Inc.

California Court of Appeal
61 Cal. App. 4th 1227 (1998)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An exculpatory clause purporting to release a party from liability for its own future negligence is unenforceable unless it is both physically conspicuous within the document and unambiguously and explicitly states this intent.

Facts:

In June 1993, Carlos Leon signed a 'Club Membership Agreement (Retail Installment Contract)' to join Family Fitness.
The agreement was a legal-length single sheet of paper covered with dense text on both sides, and its title did not indicate it contained a liability release.
An exculpatory clause was located at the bottom of a long column of text, printed in the same small font as the surrounding provisions, with no special heading, bolding, or other distinguishing features.
The clause stated the member assumes the risk of injury from 'sport or exercise' and releases Family Fitness from liability for injuries 'resulting from or related to Member’s use of the facilities or participation in any sport, exercise or activity.'
In January 1994, while a member, Leon was injured when a sauna bench he was lying on collapsed beneath him.

Procedural Posture:

Carlos Leon filed a personal injury lawsuit against Family Fitness in the trial court.
Family Fitness moved for summary judgment, arguing the liability release in Leon's membership agreement barred the claim.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Family Fitness.
Carlos Leon, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate appellate court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

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

Issue:

Is an exculpatory clause in a health club's membership agreement enforceable to bar a member's personal injury claim when the clause is inconspicuous and does not explicitly cover the business's own negligence for injuries unrelated to the inherent risks of exercise?

Opinions:

Majority - Work, Acting P. J.

No. An exculpatory clause is unenforceable if it is not sufficiently conspicuous and unambiguous. The court reasoned that the release clause was invalid for two main reasons. First, it was not conspicuous; it was buried in a lengthy, dense, single-spaced document, printed in small, undifferentiated typeface with no highlighting, bolding, or heading to draw a reader's attention to the waiver of their legal rights. Second, the clause was ambiguous because it did not clearly and explicitly express an intent to release Family Fitness from liability for its own negligence. The language of the release focused on the risks inherent in sports and exercise, which a reasonable person would not interpret to include the risk of a permanent fixture like a sauna bench collapsing due to the facility's negligence.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces judicial skepticism towards exculpatory clauses in consumer contracts and clarifies the dual requirements of conspicuousness and clarity. It establishes a high bar for businesses seeking to insulate themselves from their own negligence, requiring not just specific language but also a physical presentation that ensures a layperson is adequately notified of the rights they are waiving. The case distinguishes between inherent risks of an activity, which a member knowingly assumes, and risks from a business's general negligence in maintaining its premises, which requires a much more explicit and prominent release to be waived.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Leon v. Family Fitness Center ( 107), Inc. (1998)

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