Gym Patrons Limited in Right to Sue for Injuries
Gym members- beware of what you sign! When the health club/gym contract includes wording such as "entirely at your own risks," or "assume all risks," you probably have released the gym from liability for your injuries. In a recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision on August 6, 2010, the Court ruled that a gym or health club patron who has signed a membership contract that includes a waiver barring suit for injuries is prevented from suing and recovering monetary compensation for injuries suffered in the gym, absent reckless conduct or gross negligence of the club operators.
The Court's decision in Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises,LLC , stems from a spinning class injury where the patron, while at a Powerhouse Gym, fell while spinning after her bike's handlebars dislodged due to the absence of a pin as she stood on the bike's pedals as instructed. Because the patron had signed a membership contract that included a waiver that she was exercising "entirely at your own risk," the NJ Supreme Court ruled that she released the gym from liability.
So what does a health club patron do if one doesn't like the gym contract? According to NJ Supreme Court Justice Jaynee LaVecchia, who wrote for the majority in Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises,LLC, try another club or make other arrangements to exercise. Unfortunately, if a club's contract does not presently include language waiving one's right to sue for injuries, you can be assured it will in the future based upon this ruling.
If you or a family member has suffered a personal injury, contact the Law Offices of Todd B. Eder, P.C., at (732) 937-9100. With offices in East Brunswick and Neptune City, NJ, we offer statewide representation.
LAWSUITS PERMITTED FOR MISHANDLED 9-1-1 CALLS
Two New Jersey Appellate Court panels recently ruled in separate opinions that governmental entities and their 9-1-1 operators are not immune from lawsuits for bungled 9-1-1 calls. Previously, it was believed that a law known as the 9-1-1 immunity statute, N.J.S.A. 52:17C-10, granted immunity from lawsuits to all emergency call centers and the government entities running them. However, in a pair of cases, Massachi v. City of Newark Police Department and Wilson v. City of Jersey City, the NJ Appellate Division ruled that there is no immunity to emergency communication centers or the 9-1-1 operators for their negligence.
In Massachi v. City of Newark Police Department , the Court ruled that the statutory immunity of N.J.S.A. 52:17C-10, does not afford immunity to a 9-1-1 emergency communications center and to its employees for the negligent rendering of 9-1-1 services, including dispatching police to an incorrect location, failing to keep the caller on the line so she could update the 9-1-1 employee on the location of the perpetrator and failing to broadcast an alert to surrounding municipalities.
In Wilson v. City of Jersey City, the Court refused to dismiss claims against 9-1-1 operators for failing to follow protocols and misdirecting 9-1-1 calls during a mass homicide.
If you or a family member has suffered a personal injury, contact the Law Offices of Todd B. Eder, P.C. at (732) 937-9100, with offices conveniently located in East Brunswick and Neptune City for statewide representation.
April 29, 2010