Toro, C. v. Fitness International, LLC
150 A.3d 968
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Charles Toro slipped and fell on soapy, cloudy water in the men’s locker room at an L.A. Fitness club and sued for premises negligence.
- Toro had signed a two-page Membership Agreement containing a boxed, bolded “RELEASE AND WAIVER OF LIABILITY AND INDEMNITY” that waived claims for injuries caused by the gym’s negligence and stated the signer read and understood the agreement.
- Fitness submitted an affidavit from the club manager that staff regularly inspected the locker room and that no reports of a wet floor existed before Toro’s fall.
- Toro testified he did not know how long the floor had been wet, had never seen such soapy buildup before, and later submitted an affidavit saying he did not recall reading the waiver.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Fitness on two independent grounds: (1) the waiver was valid and barred Toro’s negligence claim; and (2) Toro failed to prove Fitness created or had actual/constructive notice of the dangerous condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of waiver (public policy) | Waiver invalid as against public policy because it implicates health/safety. | Waiver applies to voluntary recreational activity and does not offend public policy. | Waiver valid; not contrary to public policy. |
| Adhesion / unequal bargaining power | Membership agreement is a contract of adhesion and unenforceable. | Agreement for voluntary gym use is not an adhesion contract; signer was not compelled. | Not an adhesion contract; waiver enforceable. |
| Notice / conspicuity of waiver | Waiver unenforceable because Toro did not read it and it was not sufficiently conspicuous. | Signed, acknowledged agreement that expressly referenced the waiver makes conspicuity analysis unnecessary. | Toro’s signature and explicit acknowledgment bind him; waiver enforceable despite claimed non‑reading. |
| Negligence / constructive notice | A jury could infer Fitness had constructive notice from the unusual soapy buildup and absence of inspection logs; failure to provide mats was negligent as a matter of law. | No evidence Fitness created the condition or had actual/constructive notice; no evidence mats were required. | Summary judgment proper: Toro failed to show creation, actual notice, or sufficient evidence of constructive notice or a duty to install mats. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, 2 A.3d 1174 (Pa. 2010) (upholding exculpatory release in recreational-ski context; sets standards for public-policy and adhesion analyses)
- Hinkal v. Pardoe, 133 A.3d 738 (Pa. Super. en banc 2016) (signed gym membership with waiver enforces contract terms and makes Beck‑Hummel conspicuity analysis inapplicable)
- Beck‑Hummel v. Ski Shawnee, Inc., 902 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2006) (distinguishes unsigned or ticket-based releases—conspicuity and notice can create fact issues)
- Murphy v. Duquesne Univ. of the Holy Ghost, 777 A.2d 418 (Pa. 2001) (summary judgment standard and burden when non-moving party bears proof)
- McKelvey v. Juniata Borough, 108 A. 205 (Pa. 1919) (constructive notice may be inferred from condition’s nature and duration)