David Alvarez v. Ltf Club Operations Company Inc
328221
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 29, 2016Background
- David and Elena Alvarez, members at Lifetime Fitness, brought their daughter to use the facility's rock-climbing wall; David had not used the wall before.
- David signed Lifetime’s waiver forms, was given a harness by employee Karina Montes Agredano, climbed the wall, and attempted to descend via an automatic belay.
- David’s harness was on backwards and improperly hooked to the belay; he fell and sustained multiple injuries.
- Plaintiffs alleged Agredano, as Lifetime’s employee, was grossly negligent by failing to ensure David had properly attached the harness and belay before climbing or descending.
- Lifetime moved for summary disposition relying on the waiver and assumption-of-risk language, arguing plaintiffs could only show ordinary negligence, not gross negligence; the trial court granted summary disposition.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding plaintiffs’ deposition testimony created a genuine issue of material fact on gross negligence and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether waiver bars recovery for employee conduct when only ordinary negligence shown | Agredano’s conduct was grossly negligent (ignored visible backward harness, instructed David to "just let go") | Waiver/assumption of risk bars claims unless conduct rises to gross negligence; here only ordinary negligence | Reversed trial court: factual dispute exists whether conduct was gross negligence, so waiver did not preclude litigation at summary stage |
| Whether evidence presented could support gross negligence at summary disposition | Plaintiffs: testimony shows employee was present, saw harness issue, and instructed descent despite danger | Lifetime: employee denied being present; conduct characterized as ordinary oversight | Court: Viewing facts in plaintiffs’ favor, reasonable jurors could find willful disregard or substantial lack of concern — gross negligence could be shown |
| Appropriate standard for MCR 2.116(C)(10) review | Plaintiffs: evidence must be viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant; draw inferences for jury | Defendant: movant entitled to judgment if no genuine issue | Court applied de novo review, required viewing all evidence favorably to plaintiffs and declined to weigh credibility |
| Whether case evaluation sanctions/costs issue needs addressing on appeal | Plaintiffs sought reversal of merits; case-evaluation issue contingent on earlier ruling | Lifetime appealed denial of sanctions/costs if summary disposition improper | Court declined to decide sanctions issue because reversing summary disposition made that issue unnecessary to address now |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Mardigian Estate, 312 Mich. App. 553 (2015) (standard of review for summary disposition under MCR 2.116)
- Dillard v. Schlussel, 308 Mich. App. 429 (2014) (summary disposition; view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Xu v. Gay, 257 Mich. App. 263 (2003) (definition of gross negligence as conduct showing substantial lack of concern for injury)
- Woodman v. Kera, LLC, 280 Mich. App. 125 (2008) (ordinary negligence insufficient to raise gross negligence issue; gross negligence summary disposition appropriate only where reasonable minds cannot differ)
- Tarlea v. Crabtree, 263 Mich. App. 80 (2004) (gross negligence often shown by willful disregard of safety precautions)
- Terrace Land Dev. Corp. v. Seeligson & Jordan, 250 Mich. App. 452 (2002) (treatment of well-pleaded factual allegations under MCR 2.116(C)(7))