Summary
In Feeney, the court held that plaintiff could not justifiably rely on a statement by a personal trainer, who was aware that plaintiff had undergone shoulder surgery, that plaintiff "would have no problem" using free weights where plaintiff signed an agreement acknowledging that the neither the defendant health club nor its employees could diagnose a medical condition. Notably, unlike the instant case, there is no evidence that the defendant health club or its personnel augmented the risk to the plaintiff who voluntarily participated in the class during which he was injured.
Summary of this case from KRANTZ v. TSI EAST 41 INC.Opinion
May 23, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.).
In an action for damages arising out of a shoulder injury sustained by plaintiff while engaging in weightlifting exercises at the fitness center owned and operated by defendants, the IAS Court properly dismissed the complaint upon defendants' motion for summary judgment. Although defendants may have been aware of the fact that plaintiff had, on a number of prior occasions, dislocated his left shoulder and had undergone reconstructive surgery to remedy it, plaintiff, in inquiring of his assigned personal trainer, who was employed by defendant club, whether the use of free weights would cause re-injury to his shoulder, could not justifiably rely upon the assurance given that plaintiff "would have no problem". Plaintiff was fully aware of his condition and, upon signing the membership agreement with the club, had expressly acknowledged that defendant and its employees were not qualified to diagnose, examine or treat any medical condition, or make any other such evaluation or recommendation. In addition, the agreement contained an admonishment that plaintiff see a doctor prior to using the facilities. Thus, plaintiff "was not a person wholly without knowledge seeking assurances from one with exclusive knowledge" ( Heard v. City of New York, 82 N.Y.2d 66, 75), and, by his voluntary participation in the class, consented to the activity allegedly resulting in his injury, the risk of which was a foreseeable consequence of his participation ( see, Turcotte v. Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432, 439, citing Maddox v. City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 270, 277-278). There is no evidence that defendants breached a duty of care owed to plaintiff. We have considered plaintiff's other claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.