Re: Priscilla A. Diaz v. Fitness Evolution
Superior Court No. 16CECG02822
Hearing Date: Thursday February 22, 2018 (Dept. 403)
Motion: Defendant Fitness Evolution’s Motion for Summary Judgment of
Adjudication
Tentative Ruling:
To Grant Summary Judgement.
Explanation:
A defendant moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) A defendant meets that burden by showing that one or more elements of the cause(s) of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense thereto. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subds. (p)(2), (o)(2).) To “show” a complete defense, defendant must present admissible evidence of each essential element of the defense upon which it bears the burden of proof at trial. (Anderson v. Metalclad Insulation Corp. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 284, 289.)
Regarding negligence and contractual release of liability, “[e]xpress assumption occurs when the plaintiff, in advance, expressly consents … to relieve the defendant of an obligation of conduct toward him, and to take his chances of injury from a known risk arising from what the defendant is to do or leave undone. … The result is that … being under no duty, [the defendant] cannot be charged with negligence.” (Saenz v. Whitewater Voyages, Inc. (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 758, 764.) Moreover, “parties may contract for the release of liability for future ordinary negligence so long as such contracts do not violate public policy.” (Anderson v. Fitness Internat., LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 867, 877.) Regarding premises liability, it is based in negligence, so it too is subject to contractual release. (Salinas v. Martin (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 404, 411.) Whether plaintiff’s injuries are within the scope of the release is a matter of law, the determination of which is proper for this Court. (Lombardo v. Santa Monica Young Men’s Christian Assn. (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 529; see also Kitty-Anne Music Co. v. Swan (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.)
Here, Defendant claims that Plaintiff may not recover any damages because she agreed before the incident that she would not hold Defendant responsible for any damages. To prove that there was such an agreement and that it applies to Plaintiff’s claim, Defendant submits the agreement itself (SOE, filed: 12/8/17 Ex.2 [UMF 4-6; 10-12]), as well as the declaration of Manager Jesse Sanchez wherein he authenticates it, and states that all members are required to sign. (Ibid.)
9
The agreement itself is clear and explicit and the relevant terms are not “buried in a lengthy document, hidden among verbiage, or so encumbered with other provisions as to be difficult to find.” (Leon v. Family Fitness Center (#107), Inc. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1227, 1232; see also Bennett v. United States Cycling Federation (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d. 1485, 1490.) Plaintiff’s injuries are also reasonably related to the purpose for which the release was signed. “[A]n individual who understandingly entered into the membership agreement at issue can be deemed to have waived any hazard known to relate to the use of the health club facilities. These hazards typically include the risk of a sprained ankle due to improper exercise or overexertion, a broken toe from a dropped weight, injuries due to malfunctioning exercise or sports equipment, or from slipping in the locker-room shower (Leon, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at 1234 emphasis added; see also Benedek v. PLC Santa Monica (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1361; Lund v. Bally’s Aerobic Plus, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 733, 739.) Finally, the agreement does not violate public policy. (YMCA of Metro. Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 22, 27; see also Hulsey v. Elsinore Parachute Center (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 333, 342-343.) Particularly, Courts have upheld liability releases and waiver provisions in fitness club agreements. (Sanchez v. Bally’s Total Fitness (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 62; see also Benedek, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1356.)
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: KCK on 02/20/18
(Judge’s initials) (Date)