Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc.
1982 Minn. LEXIS 1874, 326 N.W.2d 920 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An exculpatory clause in a contract for recreational services, such as a health spa membership, is not void as against public policy if it is unambiguous, there is no significant disparity in bargaining power between the parties, and the service provided is not a public or essential service.
Facts:
- In January 1976, Sandra C. Schlobohm entered into a membership contract with Spa Petite, Inc., a for-profit health spa.
- The contract contained a clause stating that the member undertakes all use of the facilities at their 'sole risk' and releases Spa Petite from liability for any injuries, including those arising from 'active or passive negligence.'
- Schlobohm informed a Spa Petite instructor of a prior mild back muscle spasm, which was noted on her exercise program card.
- Schlobohm used the facility regularly from January to June 1976, gradually increasing the difficulty of her program.
- On June 7, 1976, while using a leg extension machine, an unidentified woman examined Schlobohm's card and recommended doubling the weight from 20 to 40 pounds.
- Despite Schlobohm questioning the increase due to her prior back issues, the weight was added.
- Upon lifting her legs with the increased weight, Schlobohm felt a 'snap' in her lower back, resulting in immediate pain and a significant, long-term injury requiring surgery.
Procedural Posture:
- Sandra C. Schlobohm and her husband sued Spa Petite, Inc. in a Minnesota state trial court, alleging negligence and seeking damages for personal injuries.
- Spa Petite filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the exculpatory clause in the membership contract barred Schlobohm's claims.
- The trial court denied Spa Petite's motion, holding that the contract was one of adhesion and the exculpatory clause was void as against public policy.
- The trial court then certified the question of the exculpatory clause's validity to the Minnesota Supreme Court as being important and doubtful.
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 an exculpatory clause in a health spa membership contract, which purports to release the spa from liability for its own negligence, violate public policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Kelley, Justice
No, the exculpatory clause in the health spa membership contract does not violate public policy. Such clauses are valid when they are unambiguous and the contract does not involve the public interest. The court applied a two-prong test to assess public policy concerns: (1) disparity of bargaining power and (2) the type of service offered. The court found no disparity in bargaining power because Schlobohm joined voluntarily, the service was not essential or necessary, and she could have sought similar services elsewhere. Furthermore, the court determined that a health spa is not a public or essential service suitable for public regulation, unlike common carriers, hospitals, or public utilities. Because the clause was clear and limited to negligence, and the service was a non-essential recreational activity voluntarily entered into, the clause is enforceable.
Dissenting - Simonett, Justice
Yes, the exculpatory clause violates public policy. The agreement was a contract of adhesion presented on a 'take it or leave it' basis by the dominant party, Spa Petite, to an individual consumer. This indicates a significant disparity in bargaining power. The spa marketed its services not merely as recreation but as a program of 'community service' to promote good health, which brings it closer to a service affecting the public interest. Given these factors, public policy should not permit a dominant party to impose such a sweeping disclaimer of its own negligence.
Dissenting - Wahl, Justice
Yes, the exculpatory clause violates public policy. Joining Justice Simonett's dissent, this opinion adds that in a society obsessed with health and physical fitness, the health business offers an essential public service. This service benefits society as a whole by promoting a healthy populace and, therefore, may well be suitable for public regulation, satisfying a key element for invalidating such clauses on public policy grounds.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the framework in Minnesota for analyzing the validity of exculpatory clauses in contracts for recreational services. It clearly distinguishes non-essential, voluntary activities from essential public services where such liability waivers are disfavored. The case provides significant legal protection to businesses offering recreational activities (e.g., gyms, ski resorts) from negligence claims, provided their waivers are unambiguous and do not attempt to cover intentional or wanton misconduct. Future litigation over such clauses will likely focus on arguing whether a specific service is 'essential' and whether there was a meaningful choice for the consumer, thereby creating a disparity in bargaining power.
