C.H. v. Pla-Fit Franchise, LLC
2017 IL App (3d) 160378
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (C.H. and Kelly Otterness) were secretly videotaped while using single-occupancy tanning rooms at a Planet Fitness franchise in Moline, Illinois; hidden cameras were discovered in November 2014 and a gym member was arrested.
- Plaintiffs sued the franchisor (Pla-Fit) and the franchisee (PF East Moline) alleging negligence and premises-liability claims, seeking only emotional-distress damages.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendants knew (or should have known) of the risk from prior incidents at other Planet Fitness locations, failed to implement or enforce inspection/training/policy measures, and failed to warn members.
- Trial court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss under section 2-615 for failure to state a claim; plaintiffs appealed.
- On appeal the parties limited issues to (1) negligence for third-party criminal acts and (2) premises-liability under section 2 of the Premises Liability Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PF East Moline is negligent for third-party criminal acts (special-relationship / Restatement §344) | PF East Moline, as business invitor, had duty to protect invitees from third-party secret recordings and breached it by failing inspections, training, and policies | Duty under §344 is limited to physical harm; no redressible injury for purely emotional harm | Dismissed — duty under §344 does not extend to claims seeking only emotional-distress damages |
| Whether PF East Moline is liable under premises-liability (Restatement §343 / Premises Liability Act §2) | PF East Moline knew or should have known of dangerous condition (hidden cameras), failed to protect or warn, causing emotional distress | §343/premises liability requires physical-harm nexus; emotional harm alone is insufficient | Dismissed — premises-liability principles do not provide recovery for solely emotional harm |
| Whether Pla-Fit (franchisor) is negligent for third-party criminal acts (special-relationship / voluntary undertaking) | Pla-Fit controlled standards/inspections and voluntarily undertook protection obligations; therefore owes duty and breached it | Franchisor is not a possessor of land and does not stand in special relationship to invitees; voluntary-undertaking theory not triggered where franchisee controls day-to-day operations | Dismissed — franchisor not in special relationship; no voluntary-undertaking duty pleaded; liability limited to physical harm |
| Whether Pla-Fit is liable under premises-liability (Premises Liability Act §2 / §343) | Same premises-liability allegations applied to Pla-Fit (knew/should have known, failed to act) | Pla-Fit is not possessor of land; §343/Act require physical-harm claim | Dismissed — plaintiffs alleged only emotional harm and Pla-Fit is not a possessor; no premises-liability recovery for emotional injury alone |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422 (recognizing Restatement §344 special-relationship framework for third-party acts)
- Hills v. Bridgeview Little League Ass’n, 195 Ill. 2d 210 (no general duty to protect from third-party criminal acts absent special relationship)
- Rowe v. State Bank of Lombard, 125 Ill. 2d 203 (applying third-party liability principles)
- Cross v. Wells Fargo Alarm Services, 82 Ill. 2d 313 (third-party-act liability context)
- Castro v. Brown’s Chicken & Pasta, Inc., 314 Ill. App. 3d 542 (franchisor not liable under voluntary-undertaking when franchisee retains day-to-day control)