Inadequate Record Keeping May Result in Gross Negligence For Injuries Caused by Exercise Equipment Malfunction

In Chavez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., 2015 No. H040987, the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District, reversed summary judgment in favor of defendant 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (“24 Hour”), holding defendant’s incomplete maintenance logs for its fitness equipment may be a basis for gross negligence after plaintiff was struck in the head by a piece of fitness machinery.

Plaintiff Stacey Chavez purchased a gym membership to 24 Hour in San Jose, California. Ms. Chavez signed a release of liability, in which she agreed that 24 Hour would not be liable for any injury sustained as a result of 24 Hour’s negligence. On February 28, 2011, Ms. Chavez was exercising on a cable crossover machine (“cross-trainer”), when the machine’s back panel struck her in the head and she suffered a traumatic brain injury.

Ms. Chavez sued 24 Hour for, inter alia, ordinary and gross negligence, and premises liability. 24 Hour moved for summary judgment, arguing the release of liability in the membership agreement was a complete defense to plaintiff’s negligence and premises liability claims. 24 Hour further argued that plaintiff could not show an “‘extreme departure from the ordinary standard’ of ‘care or failure to exercise scant care’” sufficient for gross negligence. To support its position, 24 Hour presented evidence that it employed a technician to routinely inspect and perform preventative maintenance on the equipment.

In opposition, plaintiff argued 24 Hour presented no evidence that anyone actually performed preventative maintenance on the cross-trainer machine prior to the accident. Plaintiff’s expert, a mechanical engineer specializing in exercise equipment design, opined the machine’s back panel should have been held together by four metal brackets and magnetic strips. Inspection revealed the magnetic strips and one of the brackets were missing. The three remaining brackets were bent or worn. Plaintiff further submitted evidence that industry custom requires that the cross-trainer be inspected weekly.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of 24 Hour. The court ruled plaintiff’s negligence and premises liability claims were barred by the release of liability in the membership agreement. Finally, the court held that 24 Hour met its burden in demonstrating it was not grossly negligent, because “it had a system of preventative and responsive maintenance of its equipment in place . . . .” Specifically, there were no triable issues as to whether there was gross negligence simply because of 24 Hour’s alleged failure to maintain its machines according to “some industry standard” or as recommended in the owner’s manual. The court deemed these untaken precautions as “common enough occurrence[s].” Plaintiff appealed on the gross negligence cause of action.

The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for defendant, holding plaintiff sufficiently raised a triable issue of material fact as to whether 24 Hour’s conduct constituted gross negligence. Evidence indicated 24 Hour did not perform regular preventative maintenance of its equipment prior to the incident. The maintenance logs submitted in support of 24 Hour’s summary judgment motion were blank, and failed to clearly indicate what maintenance, if any, was performed on the cross-trainer prior to the incident.

Chavez highlights the importance of meticulous record keeping for preventative maintenance performed on machinery. Failure to do so leaves the entity that maintains the machinery vulnerable to claims for gross negligence.

This document is intended to provide you with information about general liability and product liability related developments. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.

July 10, 2015