Washington v. Rosales CA4/3
G058187
Cal. Ct. App.Nov 2, 2020Background:
- Plaintiff Patricia Washington attended Fit Body Boot Camp classes and signed a 2014 written waiver releasing the gym, its agents, and employees from claims "including . . . negligence."
- In March 2016 Washington was struck on the hand by another participant’s dumbbell during a "farmer’s carry" exercise and sued for negligence and related claims.
- Defendant/instructor Alisson Rosales moved for summary judgment relying on the 2014 release and evidence she supervised the class; the trial court granted the motion.
- Washington opposed, arguing the Health Studio Services Act made the waiver unenforceable, that gross negligence (not waivable) was pleaded, and that her expert (Kurt Baker) created triable issues about gross negligence.
- The trial court struck large portions of Baker’s declaration for lack of foundation, speculation, factual testimony, and irrelevance; the court found no evidence of gross negligence.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the Act did not apply, the burden properly shifted after Rosales produced the release, the evidentiary exclusions were proper, and Washington failed to show a triable issue of gross negligence.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Health Studio Services Act to the 2014 waiver | Act governs health-studio contracts and requires delivery of written contracts; waiver unenforceable if Act applies | The Act regulates financial/membership contracts, not tort liability waivers that create no payment/membership obligations | Act inapplicable; waiver is not a "contract for health studio services" under the Act |
| Burden of proof on summary judgment when release asserted | Rosales should have negated negligence/gross negligence as elements (cites Kim) | A defendant may meet initial burden by producing a complete defense (the release); once shown burden shifts to plaintiff to raise triable issue of unenforceability/gross negligence | Proper to shift burden after Rosales produced prima facie evidence of the release; Rosales also presented evidence undermining gross negligence |
| Admissibility of expert declaration (Baker) | Baker’s opinions create triable issues about class configuration, spacing, and industry standards | Baker’s declaration is speculative, lacks identification of standards, impermissibly states case-specific facts and includes irrelevant matters | Court properly sustained objections: Baker failed to identify standards, relied on speculation/facts he did not prove, and opined on irrelevant matters |
| Existence of triable issue of gross negligence | Class was overcrowded/poorly supervised; gross negligence is alleged and not waivable | No evidence of gross negligence: Rosales supervised class, participant spacing was adequate per witnesses, collision was isolated and unforeseeable | No triable issue; evidence showed adequate spacing and no extreme departure from standard of care, so waiver bars negligence claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 747 (agreements releasing future gross negligence in recreational contexts generally unenforceable)
- Haas v. RhodyCo Productions, 26 Cal.App.5th 11 (when defendant relies on a waiver, plaintiff must raise triable issue of gross-negligence-based unenforceability)
- Kim v. County of Monterey, 43 Cal.App.5th 312 (discussion of burdens on summary judgment motions)
- Bushling v. Fremont Medical Center, 117 Cal.App.4th 493 (expert opinion requires reasoned explanation and adequate foundation)
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (experts may not assert unproven case-specific facts as true)