2021 Ohio 1694
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Plaintiff Beatrice Oliveri, who has osteoporosis, attended an OsteoStrong presentation and received two free training sessions; her doctor had advised caution.
- Before the first session Oliveri signed a wellness assessment containing a waiver: she assumed responsibility for participating and waived the right to pursue legal action for any "physical or mental anguish" from participating in the OsteoStrong system.
- During her second, supervised session an instructor told her to repeat an exercise "harder," and she suffered a thoracic compression fracture.
- Oliveri sued OsteoStrong (and others later dismissed), alleging negligence for failure to warn, instruct, supervise, and maintain equipment.
- OsteoStrong moved for summary judgment arguing (1) the signed waiver barred suit and (2) Oliveri assumed the risk (express, primary, and implied). The trial court granted summary judgment based on the waiver being clear and unambiguous.
- The court of appeals reversed and remanded: it held the waiver language did not clearly waive negligence claims ("anguish" ≠ all "injury") and genuine issues of fact remained on assumption-of-risk defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/interpretation of signed waiver | Oliveri: waiver ambiguous; does not mention negligence or "injury" and "anguish" is narrower | OsteoStrong: waiver is clear and unambiguous and bars suit | Waiver is ambiguous as written; "anguish" does not clearly waive negligence claims; summary judgment on this basis improper |
| Express assumption of risk / release of negligence | Oliveri: waiver did not expressly relinquish right to sue for negligence | OsteoStrong: express assumption/release bars recovery even without the word "negligence" | Court: release language did not clearly and unambiguously waive negligence claims; express assumption fails |
| Primary assumption of risk (activity-inherent danger) | Oliveri: injury resulted from instructor conduct, not an ordinary inherent risk of exercise | OsteoStrong: training risks should be treated as inherent to workout activity | Court: primary assumption inapplicable—injury not from a danger ordinary to the activity; summary judgment on this ground not warranted |
| Implied assumption of risk / comparative negligence | Oliveri: relied on OsteoStrong assurances and employee supervision; dispute on whether she knowingly accepted fracture risk | OsteoStrong: Oliveri knew her fracture risk from osteoporosis and therefore assumed it | Court: implied-assumption issues are factual and go to comparative negligence; genuine fact issues remain |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Ceccardi, 6 Ohio St.3d 110 (Ohio 1983) (defines express assumption of risk as contracting not to sue for future injuries caused by negligence)
- Gallagher v. Cleveland Browns Football Co., 74 Ohio St.3d 427 (Ohio 1996) (primary assumption of risk can negate duty element in negligence)
- Glaspell v. Ohio Edison Co., 29 Ohio St.3d 44 (Ohio 1987) (releases of future tort liability are disfavored and construed narrowly)
- Tanker v. N. Crest Equestrian Ctr., 86 Ohio App.3d 522 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993) (overly general release language may be meaningless and not bar claims)
- Gomolka v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 166 (Ohio 1982) (contract interpretation requires reading clauses as a whole)
- Holmes v. Health & Tennis Corp. of Am., 103 Ohio App.3d 364 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (equates express assumption of risk with waiving the right to recover)