Seigneur v. National Fitness Institute, Inc.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2000 · Torts

Tortsassumption of riskexculpatory clausepublic policygymexculpatory clausereleasenegligence

Facts

Seigneur joined NFI on a one-month trial basis and signed a participation agreement stating that exercise was undertaken at her sole risk and expressly releasing NFI from all claims arising from the use of its services and facilities, including all acts of active or passive negligence by NFI, its servants, agents, or employees. NFI knew before the accident that Seigneur had serious lower back problems and poor general physical condition. During her initial evaluation, an NFI employee directed her to lift ninety pounds on an upper torso machine, after which Seigneur felt a tearing sensation in her shoulder and reported it immediately. She alleged NFI was negligent through its employee's instruction and through negligent hiring and training.

Issue

Whether the exculpatory clause in the parties' agreement validly released NFI from liability for injuries to Seigneur allegedly caused by NFI's negligence. Also, whether the clause was unenforceable on public policy grounds because of unequal bargaining power or because the transaction involved the public interest.

Rule

In Maryland, an exculpatory clause is sufficient to release a party from liability for its own future negligence if the language clearly and specifically indicates that intent; it need not use the word "negligence" or any magic words. Unambiguous exculpatory clauses are generally valid absent contrary legislation, except when the protected party intentionally causes harm or engages in reckless, wanton, or gross negligence, when bargaining power is so grossly unequal that one party is at the mercy of the other's negligence, or when the transaction involves the public interest. Whether a transaction involves the public interest is determined from the totality of the circumstances, with particular concern for public-service obligations or clauses that are patently offensive to the community.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Baltimore, Dana Kim joined Harbor Point Training Studio, a private fitness club. Her membership form stated: "Member assumes all risk of injury from use of the club's services, premises, and equipment, and releases Harbor Point Training Studio and its employees from all claims for personal injury arising from their active or passive negligence." She later tore a tendon after a staff trainer allegedly gave unsafe lifting instructions during an orientation session.

If Dana sues the club for ordinary negligence, which is the most likely result under Maryland law as described in the majority opinion?

Explanation. Maryland generally enforces unambiguous exculpatory clauses unless a recognized exception applies. The majority held that no magic words are required, but language clearly and specifically releasing the defendant from liability for personal injury caused by its own negligence is sufficient. Here, the clause expressly covers injuries arising from the club's services, premises, and equipment and specifically mentions active or passive negligence by the club and its employees, so it would likely bar an ordinary negligence claim. (Derived from Seigneur v. National Fitness Institute, Inc. (2000).)