Hinkal, M. v. Pardoe, G.
133 A.3d 738
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Appellant Melinda Hinkal signed a Gold’s Gym Guest Card, Membership Agreement, and a separate Personal Training Agreement. She alleges a serious neck injury (C5 disc rupture requiring two surgeries) while following directions from a personal trainer, Gavin Pardoe.
- Appellant sued Pardoe (negligence) and Gold’s Gym entities (vicarious liability/respondeat superior and negligence of employees/agents).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the Membership Agreement contained an enforceable waiver/exculpatory clause releasing them from liability for injuries arising from use of equipment, programs, and services.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, finding the waiver valid under the Topp Copy/Employers Liability three‑part test and that its language clearly released defendants from negligence claims; appellant appealed.
- A divided panel reversed; reargument was granted and the case was heard en banc. The en banc majority affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether guest (trial) card governed at time of injury | Hinkal suggested the guest card might have expired before injury | Defendants: membership agreement (signed after guest period) governed on injury date | Court: Waived by appellant; in any event membership agreement governed — guest card irrelevant |
| Whether membership agreement waiver is valid and enforceable | Hinkal: waiver on back, unread and not "brought home"; Beck‑Hummel suggests such hidden disclaimers can be unenforceable | Defendants: signed, acknowledged contract; express directive not to sign until reading both sides; no fraud, not adhesive; waiver language clear | Court: Waiver valid and enforceable under Topp Copy standard; failure to read does not invalidate; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Whether waiver covers negligence by personal trainer (Pardoe) | Hinkal: waiver does not bar claims for trainer’s negligent or reckless conduct in personal training context | Defendants: waiver unambiguously releases claims arising from use of equipment, services, programs (including supervised activities) | Court: Waiver language sufficiently clear to cover negligence claims; defendants entitled to judgment as matter of law |
| Whether waiver excludes reckless conduct or whether recklessness was pled | Hinkal (on appeal): Pardoe’s conduct may have been reckless and outside waiver scope | Defendants: issue waived — not raised below; complaint pleaded negligence only | Court: Recklessness not pleaded nor raised below; issue waived. Even on merits, plaintiff did not preserve reckless‑conduct claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, L.P., 2 A.3d 1174 (Pa. 2010) (articulates standards for enforceability of exculpatory clauses)
- Topp Copy Prods., Inc. v. Singletary, 626 A.2d 98 (Pa. 1993) (three‑part test for validity of exculpatory clauses)
- Employers Liab. Assurance Corp. v. Greenville Bus. Men’s Ass’n, 224 A.2d 620 (Pa. 1966) (part of Topp Copy/Employers Liability framework)
- Beck‑Hummel v. Ski Shawnee, Inc., 902 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2006) (unenforceability of unread/unsigned ticket release where no meeting of the minds)
- Tayar v. Camelback Ski Corp., Inc., 47 A.3d 1190 (Pa. 2012) (distinguishes negligence from recklessness; defines reckless conduct)
- Leidy v. Deseret Enters., Inc., 381 A.2d 164 (Pa. Super. 1977) (health/safety contexts raise public‑policy concerns for exculpatory clauses)