HARRISBURG – A panel of judges from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania ruled that a Philadelphia trial court was correct when it granted summary judgment to L.A Fitness and others, in response to a premises liability action brought against them.
Superior Court judges Jack A. Panella, Deborah A. Kunselman and Correale F. Stevens ruled on Jan. 27 to uphold a decision in favor of defendants Fitness International, LLC (doing business as “L.A. Fitness”), Fitness & Sports Clubs, LLC (formerly known as “Fitness International, LLC”) and Realty Income Pennsylvania Properties Trust.
Panella authored the Court’s opinion in this matter.
The Milshteyns were members of an L.A. Fitness facility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Relevantly, when they joined the facility in 2011, the Milshteyns executed a membership agreement.
On June 11, 2017, the Milshteyns were in the pool area of the L.A. Fitness at the time of a power outage. Peter slipped, while descending the stairs from the pool to the locker room in the dark. As a result of his fall, Peter sustained a fracture to his right elbow.
“The Milshteyns filed a complaint on May 16, 2019, which included Peter’s claim for premises liability – slip and fall, and Maya’s claim for loss of consortium. The complaint alleged that L.A. Fitness employees were negligent in, inter alia, creating the dangerous condition of ‘low or no lighting,’ failing to inspect or repair the area where Peter fell, and failing to warn Peter of the defective condition,” Panella said.
“Defendants filed an answer and new matter. Specifically, defendants asserted, that the Milshteyns’ claims were barred by the terms of their membership agreement. On Nov. 2, 2020, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, again asserting that the Milshteyns’ membership agreement precluded their claims.”
According to the defendants, the membership agreement signed by the plaintiffs included language that L.A. Fitness members “assume full responsibility for such risks of injury to persons and property”, when using the gym’s facilities.
“Member hereby releases and holds L.A. Fitness, its directors, officers, employees, and agents harmless from all liability to member…for any loss or damages, and forever gives up any claim or demands therefore, on account of injury to member’s person or property, including injury leading to the death of member, whether caused by active or passive negligence of L.A. Fitness or otherwise,” per the membership agreement.
Meanwhile, the Milshteyns argued that the membership agreement “constitutes a contract of adhesion, which is unconscionable, and therefore unenforceable.”
After a hearing, the trial court found on Jan. 13, 2021 that the defendants were indeed entitled to summary judgment. Specifically, regarding Fitness & Sports Clubs, the trial court concluded that the release contained in the membership agreement foreclosed the Milshteyns’ claims, that the Milshteyns did not establish that the membership agreement was a contract of adhesion and the Milshteyns could not raise a gross negligence claim for the first time in response to the defendants’ summary judgment motion.
The Milshteyns then appealed the ruling to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
“The record confirms that the Milshteyns executed the membership agreement for the purpose of participating in a voluntary athletic activity, and they were under no compulsion to complete an agreement for this non-essential service. Additionally, in signing the membership agreement, Peter acknowledged that he had read and understood the agreement, including the exculpatory provision. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on this basis,” Panella said.
“We conclude the trial court did not err. After the statute of limitations on a claim has run, a claim cannot be added to a complaint if it is wholly distinct from the claims originally in the complaint. The polestar of the analysis is whether the defendant is improperly prejudiced by the proposed addition. One way a defendant can be improperly prejudiced is if the proposed addition is not subject to the same defenses as the original claim.”
Panella added that it is precisely because a claim for “gross negligence” is not barred by the membership agreement that the Milshteyns seek to add it to the complaint.
“According to the terms of the membership agreement, Fitness & Sports Clubs cannot be held liable for injuries to patrons arising from its own negligent conduct. However, the membership agreement does not preclude liability for injuries arising from grossly negligent conduct. As a result, this circumstance weighs in favor of categorizing their claim for gross negligence as a wholly new cause of action,” Panella said.
Panella and his colleagues also found that case law cited by the plaintiffs did not support the theory of “gross negligence” as a different degree of negligence, as opposed to wholly different cause of action, and further, was not binding upon the Superior Court.
“Under these circumstances, we conclude that the Milshteyns’ claim for gross negligence constituted a wholly distinct claim from the claims originally presented in their complaint. We therefore can find no error in the trial court’s order granting summary judgment. Based upon the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants,” Panella concluded.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania case 452 EDA 2021
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas cases 190501802
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com