Grebing v. 24 Hour Fitness USA CA2/3
234 Cal. App. 4th 631
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Timothy Grebing signed 24 Hour Fitness membership agreements (Nov. 10 and Dec. 15, 2011) containing a broad release that waived liability for injuries "resulting from any negligence of 24 Hour or anyone on 24 Hour's behalf" and stated 24 Hour "may not be held liable for defective products."
- On May 9, 2012 Grebing was injured when a snap clip on a low-row exercise machine failed, striking him in the forehead; he had previously read a warning on the machine to check the safety clip.
- 24 Hour’s facility had routine daily inspections by a facilities technician; the technician was off the day of the accident and the manager would have performed the inspection. Another member had previously reported missing or crooked clips on machines, but did not report a specific dangerous clip on the machine Grebing used.
- Grebing sued for negligence, negligent products liability, strict products liability, and breach of implied warranty.
- 24 Hour moved for summary judgment, arguing the written release barred negligence and warranty claims and that it was a service provider (not a product supplier) precluding strict products liability. The trial court granted summary judgment; Grebing appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/scope of release | Release does not cover defendant's own negligence or failure to assemble/maintain equipment | Release expressly covers injuries "resulting from any negligence of 24 Hour" and equipment use | Release is clear and bars ordinary negligence and warranty claims |
| Gross negligence exception | Lozoya's reports and improper clip show want of "even scant care"; triable issue of gross negligence | 24 Hour had routine inspections and prompt procedures; isolated reports and 15-minute window insufficient | No triable issue of gross negligence; evidence shows at most ordinary negligence |
| Products liability applicability | 24 Hour was in chain of distribution and can be liable under products liability theories | Dominant purpose of the transaction was provision of fitness services, not sale of products, so strict products liability inapplicable | 24 Hour is a service provider; strict products liability inapplicable |
| Breach of implied warranty | Release cannot waive warranty for gross negligence; gross negligence is disputed | Release bars implied warranty absent gross negligence; no gross negligence shown | Release bars breach of warranty; no material fact dispute on gross negligence |
Key Cases Cited
- Tunkl v. Regents of University of California, 60 Cal.2d 92 (releases for ordinary negligence valid unless against public policy)
- City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 747 (distinguishes gross from ordinary negligence; releases unenforceable for gross negligence)
- Leon v. Family Fitness Center (#107), Inc., 61 Cal.App.4th 1227 (health-club releases cover risks from malfunctioning equipment)
- Paralift, Inc. v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.App.4th 748 (release of all liability for negligent acts applies to unknown negligent acts)
- Ontiveros v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., 169 Cal.App.4th 424 (service-provider dominant-purpose test bars strict products liability for fitness centers)
- Westlye v. Look Sports, Inc., 17 Cal.App.4th 1715 (products liability claims cannot be waived)
- Zipusch v. LA Workout, Inc., 155 Cal.App.4th 1281 (release did not explicitly waive defendant's own negligence; distinguished here)