Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprise LLC

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Torts

Tortspremises liabilityexculpatory agreementscontracts of adhesionrecreational activitieswaiverreleasefitness club

Facts

Plaintiff joined Powerhouse Gym and, as part of the membership paperwork, signed a preprinted waiver stating that use of the club, its equipment, classes, and instruction was at her own risk and expressly releasing the club from liability, including for negligence, arising from use of equipment and the sudden and unforeseen malfunctioning of equipment. On the same day, she attended a spinning class, told the instructor she was inexperienced, received assistance adjusting the bike, and was told to watch and imitate the instructor. When the class shifted from seated to standing riding, the handlebars dislodged and plaintiff fell forward while her feet remained strapped to the pedals. Expert submissions indicated the handlebars would separate only if the locking pin had not been engaged and the stem was merely resting on the pin.

Issue

Is a pre-injury waiver signed as part of a private fitness-center membership enforceable to bar a patron's negligence claims for injuries sustained while voluntarily using exercise equipment in an instructed class? More specifically, does enforcement of such a waiver violate public policy or an inviolable legal duty owed by the fitness center?

Rule

A pre-injury exculpatory agreement in a private fitness-center membership is enforceable when it clearly and unequivocally expresses the patron's voluntary release of claims, including negligence, and enforcement does not violate public policy. In this setting, the mere existence of a common-law premises-liability duty does not create a per se bar to enforcement; however, a fitness center may not exculpate itself from reckless or gross negligence, including knowingly leaving dangerous equipment conditions unremedied or failing to warn of them.

🔒

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.

Lena Ortiz joined Summit Forge Fitness in Columbus, Ohio. As part of the membership packet, she signed a one-page form stating that use of all exercise equipment, classes, training, and instruction was at her own risk and that she released the club from all claims, including claims based on the club's negligence; she was injured when a resistance machine seat slipped during a coached circuit class.

If Lena sues the club for ordinary negligence, which is the strongest argument that the release is enforceable?

Explanation. The majority required, as a threshold matter, that an exculpatory agreement clearly and unequivocally express that the signer voluntarily and knowingly gave up legal rights. A signed writing is presumed understood absent fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Here, the clause expressly covers equipment, classes, instruction, and negligence, so it can bar ordinary-negligence claims in the private fitness-center setting. (Derived from Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprise LLC (n.d.).)