Sanchez v. Bally's Total Fitness Corp.
68 Cal. App. 4th 62, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 902 (1988)
Rule of Law:
An exculpatory clause in a contract can be valid and bar a negligence claim even if it does not explicitly use the word 'negligence,' so long as the language is clear, unambiguous, and the injury arises from a risk reasonably contemplated by the parties at the time of the contract.
Facts:
- In June 1990, Kathleen Sanchez, a senior real estate officer, joined a health club owned by Bally's Total Fitness Corporation.
- Upon joining, Sanchez signed a membership agreement containing a clause stating that all exercise is undertaken at the member's sole risk and that the fitness center is not liable for any injuries connected with the use of the center.
- On November 2, 1995, Sanchez participated in a slide aerobics class at Bally's, which involved using a very slippery mat and special socks to slide side-to-side.
- During a break in the class, Sanchez attempted to walk across the slippery mat.
- Despite moving slowly and cautiously, Sanchez slipped on the mat and sustained an injury to her wrist.
- Sanchez claimed her injury was due to Bally's failure to provide proper instruction on how to safely cross the mat.
Procedural Posture:
- Kathleen Sanchez filed a negligence lawsuit against Bally’s Total Fitness Corporation in the trial court.
- Bally's moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the release Sanchez signed and by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Bally's on both grounds.
- Sanchez, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the 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 broadly worded release of liability in a health club membership agreement, which does not explicitly use the word 'negligence' or feature conspicuous formatting, bar a member's claim for injuries sustained during an exercise class?
Opinions:
Majority - Vogel, (C. S.), P. J.
Yes. A broadly worded release of liability can bar a negligence claim if the intent of the parties, as expressed in the clear and unambiguous language of the contract, was to release the defendant from liability for such an injury. The court's analysis focuses on the intent of the parties rather than the mechanical application of a formula requiring specific words like 'negligence.' The release stated that the member assumes all risks for injuries 'arising out of or connected with the use of the fitness center,' which clearly and unambiguously covers an injury sustained during an exercise class. Since slipping during a slide aerobics class is a risk reasonably contemplated by a person joining a health club, the release is enforceable. The plaintiff's professional background in contracts further undermined her claim that she was unaware of the clause's effect, making the lack of special formatting irrelevant.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a modern, intent-based approach to interpreting exculpatory clauses, moving away from a rigid requirement that the word 'negligence' must be explicitly stated. It establishes that for recreational activities, a release is enforceable if the language is clear and the injury falls within the range of risks reasonably associated with the activity. This provides greater certainty for businesses like health clubs in drafting liability waivers, while still allowing courts to invalidate releases for injuries caused by risks not reasonably contemplated by the parties, such as the collapse of a sauna bench in the cited 'Leon' case.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Sanchez v. Bally's Total Fitness Corp. (1988)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"