Lexplug logoLexplug

Seigneur v. National Fitness Institute, Inc.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
752 A.2d 631 (Md. Spec. App. 2000) (2000)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An exculpatory clause in a contract for a non-essential recreational service is valid and enforceable if it unambiguously expresses the parties' intent to release the business from liability for its own ordinary negligence, provided it does not violate public policy.


Facts:

  • On January 30, 1996, Gerilynne Seigneur joined a fitness club owned by National Fitness Institute, Inc. (NFI) for a weight loss program.
  • Seigneur chose NFI because it advertised employing 'degreed, certified' specialists and was recommended by her chiropractor.
  • Prior to joining, Seigneur disclosed to NFI that she had a history of serious lower back problems, including a herniated disc, and was in poor physical condition.
  • As part of the membership process, Seigneur signed a 'Participation Agreement' that included an exculpatory clause.
  • The clause stated that the member assumed all exercise at their 'sole risk' and released NFI from liability for any injuries, including those arising from 'all acts of active or passive negligence on the part of NFI, Inc., its servants, agents or employees.'
  • During her initial evaluation, an NFI employee, Kim Josties, instructed Seigneur to lift a ninety-pound weight on an upper torso machine.
  • While attempting to lift the weight, Seigneur felt a tearing sensation in her right shoulder and immediately reported the injury to Josties.
  • Seigneur later required shoulder surgery for the injury, which her doctor attributed to the incident at NFI.

Procedural Posture:

  • Gerilynne Seigneur and her husband filed a negligence complaint against National Fitness Institute, Inc. (NFI) in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, a state trial court.
  • NFI filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court treated as a motion for summary judgment because outside evidence (the contract) was considered.
  • The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of NFI, dismissing the Seigneurs' case.
  • The Seigneurs, as appellants, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Locked

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 fitness club's membership agreement, which explicitly releases the club from liability for its own 'active or passive negligence,' validly shield the club from a member's negligence claim?


Opinions:

Majority - Salmon, J.

Yes, the exculpatory clause validly releases NFI from liability for its negligence. The court found that the clause was unambiguous because it explicitly mentioned releasing NFI from liability for 'active or passive negligence,' clearly indicating the parties' intent. Furthermore, the clause did not violate public policy because providing health club services is not an essential public service. The court applied the three public policy exceptions from Wolf v. Ford and found none applied: (1) NFI's actions were not alleged to be intentional or grossly negligent; (2) there was no gross inequality of bargaining power, as health clubs are non-essential and numerous alternatives exist; and (3) the transaction did not involve the public interest, as a health club is not a public utility, common carrier, or other essential service where a release would be 'patently offensive.' The court concluded that parties are generally free to contract as they see fit for recreational activities.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the enforceability of clearly drafted exculpatory clauses in Maryland for contracts involving non-essential, recreational services. It confirms that a 'contract of adhesion' status is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate the unequal bargaining power required to invalidate such a clause. The court's rejection of a rigid public interest test in favor of a 'totality of the circumstances' approach from Wolf v. Ford gives courts flexibility but also provides strong protection for businesses like gyms and amusement parks. The ruling emphasizes the principle of freedom of contract and places the onus on consumers to understand the rights they are waiving when engaging in voluntary recreational activities.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Seigneur v. National Fitness Institute, Inc. (2000) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Seigneur v. National Fitness Institute, Inc.