A decision by a California Court of Appeal should broadcast a warning to anyone who signs up for a gym membership. Read the liability waiver carefully because courts broadly interpret the fitness facility’s rights to escape liability, even if one of their employees drops you after you fall off their treadmill. To win a suit, a claimant must prove gross, not just ordinary, negligence.

Veda Tebbi, the plaintiff/appellant, sued Fitness International, LLC (Fitness) for an injury sustained when she was getting off a treadmill at the company’s facility in Chatsworth, California. She said the treadmill had a “faulty back cover” and claimed that the exercise equipment was placed too close together to be safe. But her suit faced several obstacles. Primarily, when she joined the gym, she signed a membership agreement that had a release and waiver of liability. Under the agreement, she assumed the risk for anything that happened while she was at the gym. She “expressly released” Fitness from injury claims “caused by Fitness’s active or passive negligence” while she was on the premises.

In May 2016, Tebbi claimed, her foot got caught on a metal object when she was stepping off the treadmill. She tripped, fell, and broke her hip. She subsequently sued Fitness for “entitled negligence-premises liability, unsafe conditions, and dangerous conditions on private property.” Fitness answered her complaint and filed a motion for summary judgment, primarily supported by the terms of her membership agreement.

Tebbi asked to amend her complaint and added information that claimed the treadmills had been placed too close together to allow safe descents. In addition, she stated that one of Fitness’s employees caused her additional injuries when he “negligently and carelessly” lifted and “dragged” her to the reception area without her consent. After a COVID-related delay, Fitness opposed her motion for an amended complaint.

The company also withdrew its summary judgment motion, but refiled it in October 2020. Tebbi opposed the motion and claimed that Fitness knew about the problems of too-close treadmill placement. She also said she never consented to the employee’s moving her, which caused her “injury and pain to exacerbate.” Several other amendments and counterclaims followed, and before hearing arguments, the trial court issued a tentative ruling in Tebbi’s favor.

However, after hearing all the evidence, the trial court ruled that Tebbi failed to produce any evidence of gross negligence. Also, plaintiff’s claims that the gym employee’s movement exacerbated her injuries were “an unsupported conclusion.” In addition, Tebbi’s request to amend her complaint failed to discuss the liability waiver she signed. The court also did not approve her request for an amended complaint that alleged the employee who moved her committed a battery.

After oral argument in Tebbi v. Fitness International, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael E. Whitaker granted Fitness’s motion for summary judgment. Tebbi appealed, and a unanimous opinion by a three-justice panel from Division Eight of the Second District of California’s Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision on July 25. The court found there was no abuse of discretion when it denied Tebbi’s leave to amend.

The unpublished opinion, authored by Justice Maria E. Stratton, began by explaining that summary judgment is appropriate in cases where there are no triable issues of fact. She then summarized those issues as whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment and whether the trial court’s decision abused its discretion when it failed to allow Tebbi to amend her complaint. Stratton wrote that since all of Tebbi’s injuries were caused by “ordinary” and not “gross negligence,” they were barred by the membership release she had signed when she joined.

Stratton reviewed Whitaker’s summary judgment ruling. She wrote that the burden had shifted to plaintiff Tebbi to show that the release she signed was not a complete defense to her suit that claimed gross negligence. Unfortunately for her, Tebbi could not produce any evidence that supported her claims that the too-close treadmill placement “constitute(d) such an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care that it was gross negligence.” She also failed to produce any evidence of industry standards from which Fitness deviated and no proof that the employee who moved her committed gross negligence, which is critical to overcoming the “no liability” release she signed.

“To set forth a claim for ‘gross negligence,’’ Stratton wrote, “the plaintiff must allege extreme conduct on the part of the defendant.” Plaintiff failed to produce any triable issues of fact that would support gross negligence claims.

Tebbi’s inability to amend her complaint to include battery by the employee who dropped her also “did not result in the miscarriage of justice required to warrant reversal.” Finally, the opinion said that Tebbi’s allegation that she received no notice that the case was given to a new judge did not prevent her from making a proper filing.

The trial court’s judgment was affirmed and stands as a warning to anyone who joins a gym to get in shape and lose a few pounds. Read those membership agreements very carefully, as gross negligence, defined as “reckless disregard for safety” is a high bar for an injured gym member to meet.