Ketler v. PFPA, LLC
132 A.3d 746
Del.2016Background
- DeShaun Ketler signed a Planet Fitness membership agreement that included a broad release waiving claims for injuries "resulting from the negligence of Planet Fitness" and releasing "any and all claims."
- Ketler paid $10/month and used Planet Fitness equipment beginning in 2010; the franchisee later assigned membership agreements to PFPA, LLC.
- In April 2013 a cable on a seated rowing machine broke and DeShaun was injured while using the equipment.
- The Ketlers sued for negligence; Planet Fitness moved for judgment on the pleadings based on the signed release.
- The Superior Court granted judgment for Planet Fitness, finding the release clear and unequivocal, not unconscionable, and not against public policy.
- The Ketlers appealed, arguing ambiguity, unconscionability, and public-policy invalidity of the release; the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of prospective release of negligence | Release ambiguous and unenforceable | Release clearly waives liability for negligence | Enforceable; language is clear and unequivocal |
| Unconscionability of contract | Adhesion and unequal bargaining render release unconscionable | Member had meaningful choice to accept or decline membership | Not unconscionable; no deprivation of meaningful choice |
| Public-policy bar to release | Release undermines duty to keep premises safe for invitees | No statute or public policy forbids such releases; general releases can bar legal duties | No public-policy violation; release does not contravene identified legislative policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Riverbend Cmty., LLC v. Green Stone Eng’g, LLC, 55 A.3d 330 (Del. 2012) (approves validity of clear releases of prospective negligence)
- State v. Interstate Amiesite Corp., 297 A.2d 41 (Del. 1972) (requires release to be clear and unequivocal)
- Tulowitzki v. Atl. Richfield Co., 396 A.2d 956 (Del. 1978) (unconscionability requires absence of meaningful choice and oppressive terms)
- Graham v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 565 A.2d 908 (Del. 1989) (opportunity to walk away undercuts unconscionability claim)