Recently, the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the validityof an exculpatory clause within a gym membership agreement.Exculpatory clauses and waivers of liability are enforceable,provided they are conspicuous. In certain circumstances, the waiverprovision can be enforced even when it is unread, if a reasonableperson should have noticed the clause
In this case, Melinda Hinkal asserted anegligence claim against Gavin Pardoe, a personal trainer workingat Gold’s Gym. Ms. Hinkal also brought respondeat superior claimsagainst Gold’s Gym and TRT Holdings (Defendants).
While exercising at the gym under Mr. Pardoe’s direction, Ms.Hinkal alleged that she suffered an injury that ruptured a disc inher neck, requiring two separate surgeries. She claimed that Mr.Pardoe negligently put too much weight on the workout equipment andthen instructed her to continue her workout without noticing herinjury. Defendants filed a summary judgment motion on the groundsthat Ms. Hinkal signed a guest agreement containing legal waiversof liability, barring Ms. Hinkal’s claims against them. The trialcourt granted the motion for summary judgment, and Ms. Hinkalappealed.
On appeal, Ms. Hinkal asserted that the waiver provision, on thereverse of the membership agreement, was not valid and enforceable.She claimed that it was inconspicuous and not sufficient to givenotice of its contents and significance.
The court examined the agreement itself and the waiver ofliability/assumption of risk statement. Notably, the court statedthe agreement does not provide a space for initials to indicateacknowledgement and acceptance of the additional terms. In certain circumstances, to determine if a reasonableperson should have noticed an exculpatory clause, the courtconsiders factors such as the clause’s placement in the document,the size of the clause’s print, and whether it was highlighted inall capital letters, or a differing font or color.
In this case, the court applied the relevant factors anddetermined that the exculpatory clause in the Gold’s Gym membershipagreement was not enforceable, since it was not sufficientlyconspicuous. First, it was printed on the reverse of the one-pagedocument. Second, the signature line was on the other side of thedocument. Third, the font was the same size as the other terms andwas difficult to read.
In this case, the appellate court stated that the defendantstook no steps to alert Ms. Hinkal that by signing the membershipagreement, she was waiving her right to initiate a personal injuryaction against Gold’s Gym. In conclusion, the court stated they didnot find that Ms. Hinkal’s intent was to waive her right to bring alawsuit against the gym.
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s granting of thesummary judgment motion. They remanded for further proceedings.
What indicated that the terms in the agreement at issuein this case were accepted?
What were the appellant’s arguments in support of herclaim? Which of those contention did the court imply wasirrelevant? Why?
How did the court distinguish its conclusion in thiscase from its decisions in Beck-Hummel?
