Anderson v. Fitness International, LLC
4 Cal. App. 5th 867
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Anderson (member at L.A. Fitness) signed a membership agreement containing a release/wavier that expressly released L.A. Fitness from liability for injuries caused by ordinary negligence.
- Anderson slipped in the men’s shower, breaking his humerus; he alleged the tiled shower floor sloped toward drains and was routinely covered with soap/oil residue and lacked mats/handrails.
- He claimed prior falls and that he had notified front‑desk employees multiple times about the dangerous condition; he later wrote a letter reiterating the hazard and observed no remedial changes.
- Anderson’s first amended complaint pleaded negligence (after earlier pleading gross negligence and punitive damage allegations), but the trial court struck conclusory gross‑negligence and punitive‑damages allegations without leave to amend.
- L.A. Fitness raised the release as an affirmative defense and moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted summary judgment, concluding the release barred ordinary negligence claims and Anderson failed to raise triable facts of gross negligence.
- Anderson appealed; the appellate court affirmed, holding Anderson did not allege or produce evidence creating a triable issue that L.A. Fitness’s conduct rose to gross negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the release bars Anderson's negligence claim | Release bars ordinary negligence but not gross negligence; triable issue exists that conduct was grossly negligent | Release is valid and bars ordinary negligence; Anderson failed to plead or prove gross negligence | Release barred ordinary negligence; no triable issue of gross negligence; summary judgment affirmed |
| Who bears the burden on summary judgment once release is asserted | Defendant must disprove gross negligence if complaint alleges it | Once release is established and complaint does not plead facts supporting gross negligence, burden shifts to plaintiff to produce evidence | Where complaint fails to allege facts supporting gross negligence, plaintiff bears burden to produce evidence creating triable issue |
| Whether notice + failure to mitigate alone can establish gross negligence | Repeated notice and inaction suffice to create triable issue of gross negligence | Notice alone, without facts showing extreme departure from care or active risk‑increasing conduct, is ordinary negligence | Notice and failure to mitigate, without more (e.g., extreme departure, concealment, industry‑standard breach, expert proof), do not as a matter of law create gross negligence |
| Whether striking gross‑negligence allegations without leave to amend was reversible error | Striking was error and plaintiff should be allowed to replead | Any error was harmless because facts/evidence could not support gross negligence | If evidence cannot raise triable issue of gross negligence, striking without leave was harmless; affirmance stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Biancalana v. T.D. Servs. Co., 56 Cal.4th 807 (review of summary judgment standard)
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (summary judgment burdens and standard)
- City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 747 (release unenforceable as to future gross negligence in recreational context)
- Eriksson v. Nunnink, 191 Cal.App.4th 826 (when complaint alleges gross negligence, defendant must negate those factual allegations on summary judgment)
- Jimenez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., 237 Cal.App.4th 546 (expert/industry standard can create triable issue of gross negligence)
- Grebing v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., 234 Cal.App.4th 631 (notice + limited time to remedy insufficient for gross negligence where defendant had safety measures)
- Rosencrans v. Dover Images, Ltd., 192 Cal.App.4th 1092 (distinguishing ordinary nonfeasance from conduct supporting gross negligence)