2019 Ohio 447
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Vicki Taylor, an Atrium Medical Center employee, received a complimentary massage from Massage Envy during a hospital event and signed a Massage Envy waiver before using a massage chair.
- The massage chair collapsed while Vicki was sitting in it, causing physical injuries.
- Vicki and her husband, Ralph, sued Massage Envy and Atrium for negligence and loss of consortium.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting Vicki’s signed release barred her claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Taylors appealed challenging the release’s scope as to furniture/equipment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vicki’s signed release bars negligence claims arising from the collapsed massage chair | Taylor: Release does not clearly cover the chair/equipment; factual dispute about her understanding and the chair’s condition requires jury resolution | Defendants: Release unambiguously covers "any use of the company's facilities," which includes chairs/equipment, so it bars liability | Release bars the claim; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether "facilities" in the release includes furniture/equipment such as massage chairs | Taylor: "Facilities" should not be read to automatically include the chair without clearer language | Defendants: "Facilities" means places/amenities/pieces of equipment provided for a purpose; chair is covered | Court: "Facilities" includes equipment; the chair falls within the release |
| Whether plaintiff’s lack of knowledge of specific risks defeats the release | Taylor: She did not understand potential risks from the chair collapsing, so intent to release such risks is unclear | Defendants: Release covers "any risks" from "any use" regardless of plaintiff’s specific knowledge | Court: Plaintiff’s subjective knowledge of risks is irrelevant to enforceability given clear language |
| Whether the chair’s condition affects enforceability of the release | Taylor: Condition (defect) could place the injury outside the contemplated risks | Defendants: Release covers risks from any use of facilities regardless of condition | Court: Condition does not alter scope; release language covers the injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Glaspell v. Ohio Edison Co., 29 Ohio St.3d 44 (1987) (exculpatory clauses are disfavored and strictly construed against the drafter but valid if clear and unambiguous)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (1978) (standards for summary judgment under Civ.R. 56)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (party moving for summary judgment bears initial burden to show absence of genuine issue of material fact)