2022 Ohio 4449
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Pamela Bennett, a first-time gym member, purchased personal training at Crunch Fitness and signed agreements waiving liability except for injury caused by "willful misconduct" or "gross negligence."
- Trainer Ian Biernacki was newly hired, uncertified as a personal trainer, but held strength/weightlifting-related certifications.
- During Bennett's second session, Biernacki demonstrated a "row-up" inside a power rack, told her to "step in," then looked away to check notes.
- Bennett—having never used a power rack—attempted the exercise from outside the rack; the bar slipped off the J-cups and she suffered a vertebral compression fracture requiring multiple surgeries.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding express and primary assumption of risk and that Biernacki was not grossly negligent or willful; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding a genuine factual dispute exists about whether Bennett was justified in starting without an explicit go-ahead and whether Biernacki’s conduct amounted to willful misconduct or gross negligence, so summary judgment was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether express assumption of risk/waiver bars recovery | Bennett contends the waiver exception applies because Biernacki acted with willful misconduct or gross negligence | Defendants argue Bennett expressly assumed risks and waived claims except for willful misconduct/gross negligence, which did not occur | Genuine dispute over willful misconduct/gross negligence precludes summary judgment; waiver does not automatically bar trial |
| Whether Biernacki breached duty by looking away / failing to stop incorrect performance | Bennett argues trainer knew or saw her and should have stopped her—his inattention was gross negligence or willful misconduct | Biernacki says he thought she would wait for his cue and that the act happened too quickly to prevent | Credibility conflict about whether trainer saw her and whether she was justified in starting—material fact for jury |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the evidentiary record | Bennett: conflicting evidence and expert opinion create triable issues | Defendants: undisputed that proper instruction/demonstration was given and plaintiff deviated, so defendants entitled to judgment | Court holds credibility and conflicting evidence issues mean summary judgment was improper; case remanded for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary-judgment standard and need for trial on genuine factual disputes)
- Todd Dev. Co., Inc. v. Morgan, 116 Ohio St.3d 461 (Ohio summary-judgment rule application)
- Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314 (duty is a question of law)
- Anderson v. Ceccardi, 6 Ohio St.3d 110 (express assumption of risk is a waiver of the right to recover)
- Thompson Elec., Inc. v. Bank One, Akron, N.A., 37 Ohio St.3d 259 (definition of gross negligence)
- Turner v. Turner, 67 Ohio St.3d 337 (credibility conflicts defeat summary judgment)
- Dupler v. Mansfield Journal Co., 64 Ohio St.2d 116 (conflicting evidence requires trial)