Hussein v. L.A. Fitness International, L.L.C
987 N.E.2d 460
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Hussein, a Minnesota resident, sued in Illinois for injuries from using an assisted dip/chin machine at an L.A. Fitness gym.
- A Minnesota choice-of-law provision in the membership agreement directs that Minnesota law governs the contract.
- Hussein signed a Minnesota membership agreement with an exculpatory release/waiver on its reverse side.
- The circuit court dismissed the complaint under 735 ILCS 5/2-619 due to the exculpatory clause.
- Hussein asserted the agreement was unclear and would be unenforceable under Minnesota public policy and contract-law principles.
- Hussein testified he was not using the fitness service agreement (personal training) at the time of injury; the court focused on the membership agreement).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should Minnesota law govern the exculpatory clause’s enforceability? | Hussein argues the clause is defective and unenforceable under Minnesota public policy. | L.A. Fitness asserts Minnesota law applies and enforces a clear exculpatory clause. | Minnesota law governs and enforces the clause. |
| Is the exculpatory clause valid under Minnesota/Illinois standards given public policy? | Public policy and contract-law concerns render the clause invalid. | Clause is clear, broad, and enforceable; public policy not violated. | Clause enforceable under Minnesota public-policy framework. |
| Does the clause plainly release liability for ordinary negligence in the injury here? | Clause is ambiguous and could cover more than ordinary negligence. | Clause unambiguously releases liability for ordinary negligence. | Clause covers ordinary negligence and is enforceable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlobohm v. Spa Petite, Inc., 326 N.W.2d 920 (Minn. 1982) (exculpatory clause upheld for ordinary negligence; public policy deemed not to bar release in gym contexts)
- Harris v. Walker, 119 Ill. 2d 542 (Ill. 1988) (exculpatory clauses not favored and must be strictly construed against drafter)
- Garrison v. Combined Fitness Centre, Ltd., 201 Ill. App. 3d 581 (Ill. App. 1990) (exculpatory release must clearly cover contemplated risks; strict construction against drafter)
- Anderson v. McOskar Enterprises, Inc., 712 N.W.2d 796 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006) (ambiguous language in releases disfavored; but ordinary negligence releases upheld when clear)
- Malecha v. St. Croix Valley Skydiving Club, Inc., 392 N.W.2d 727 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) (no invalidation where only ordinary negligence claimed; broad releases permissible)