Jimenez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.
237 Cal. App. 4th 546
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff Etelvina Jimenez, a long‑time 24 Hour Fitness member, suffered catastrophic head injuries after falling from a treadmill and striking an exposed steel foot of a nearby leg‑exercise machine placed about 3 ft 10 in behind the treadmill.
- The treadmill manufacturer's manual and assembly instructions required a six‑foot clearance directly behind the treadmill for user safety; 24 Hour’s treadmills at that location did not meet the six‑foot clearance.
- When joining the gym, Etelvina (who could not read or speak English) signed a membership agreement containing an expansive liability release; the membership manager who assisted her spoke only English and gestured and pointed to the monthly fee but did not translate the agreement.
- Plaintiffs submitted expert and lay declarations (accident reconstruction, medical, fitness expert, and a sister’s declaration) that the reduced clearance increased the risk of injury and that the manager’s nonverbal conduct misled Etelvina about the nature of the document she signed.
- 24 Hour moved for summary judgment arguing the release barred liability; the trial court granted summary judgment, finding no triable issue of gross negligence and no evidence of an affirmative misrepresentation in obtaining the release.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding triable issues existed on (1) whether 24 Hour’s spacing could constitute gross negligence (making the release unenforceable as to gross negligence) and (2) whether the release was procured by fraud/misrepresentation through the employee’s conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the release bars liability for injuries allegedly caused by gross negligence | The six‑foot clearance requirement was an industry/manufacturer safety standard; 24 Hour’s deliberate failure to provide it constituted gross negligence, so the release cannot bar recovery | The spacing (approx. 3–4 ft vs. 6 ft) at most shows ordinary negligence; no triable issue of gross negligence exists | Reversed: triable issue exists whether failure to provide a 6‑ft safety zone was an extreme departure from ordinary care (gross negligence) — question for jury |
| Whether the release was procured by fraud or misrepresentation | Employee knowingly misled an illiterate non‑English speaker by gesturing and pointing only to the fee, inducing her to sign the release; this creates a triable issue of fraud in execution | No affirmative misrepresentation; releasor had duty to read the instrument and Randas permits enforcement where no fraud/overreaching is shown | Reversed: triable issue exists whether nonverbal misrepresentations and overreaching induced the signature, which would void the release |
| Whether a release can cover risks not reasonably foreseeable when signed (i.e., intentional increase in risk) | Release does not cover risks that were not foreseeable, including intentional increases in danger | Release language broadly waives risks of injury, including negligence | Not considered on appeal — plaintiff forfeited this argument by not raising it below |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | Plaintiff: evidence (manufacturer manual, experts, declarations) creates factual disputes that preclude summary judgment | 24 Hour: met its burden to show release bars claims; plaintiffs failed to raise triable issues | Reversed: under de novo review, material factual disputes exist; summary judgment was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 747 (2007) (release cannot absolve party from liability for gross negligence as a matter of public policy)
- Rosencrans v. Dover Images, Ltd., 192 Cal.App.4th 1072 (2011) (gross negligence is typically a question of fact; industry practice evidence can create a triable issue)
- Decker v. City of Imperial Beach, 209 Cal.App.3d 349 (1989) (distinguishes passive or non‑culpable conduct from gross negligence)
- Grebing v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., 234 Cal.App.4th 631 (2015) (summary judgment affirmed where measures taken showed lack of gross negligence; distinguishable facts)
- Randas v. YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles, 17 Cal.App.4th 158 (1993) (signer’s failure to read release does not invalidate it absent fraud or overreaching)
- Eriksson v. Nunnink, 191 Cal.App.4th 826 (2011) (defendant bears burden to establish validity of release on summary judgment)
- Eriksson v. Nunnink, 233 Cal.App.4th 708 (2015) (post‑trial review of gross‑negligence findings; different procedural posture than summary judgment)
- Frusetta v. Hauben, 217 Cal.App.3d 551 (1990) (misrepresentation or overreaching in obtaining a release creates a jury question; only a slight showing required)
- Mairo v. Yellow Cab Co., 208 Cal. 350 (1929) (release procured from illiterate or non‑English speaker by misrepresentation should be for jury to decide)