Ontiveros v. 24 Hour Fitness Corporation
Filed December 19, 2008
Second District, Division Five
Cite as 2008 SOS 6842

Product Liability Claim of Injured Victim Denied

Susana Ontiveros entered into a membership agreement with 24 Hour Fitness which contained liability release provisions indicating that she agreed the center provided “recreational services” and was not liable for defective products.

According to the terms of the agreement, Ontiveros was entitled to use the gym’s equipment, services, and amenities, which included free weights; cardio-vascular conditioning machines and other specialized fitness equipment; group exercise classes; testing centers to record certain physical characteristics such as blood pressure and weight; and an introductory membership program that included three sessions with staff trainers. For additional fees, Ontiveros was also entitled to personal training and nutritional counseling services.

However, Ontiveros chose not to use any of the center’s other services or amenities than the exercise equipment. She said she had purchased her membership for the sole purpose of using the exercise equipment.

Further, she claimed that a cardio-vascular conditioning machine at the 24 Hour Fitness facilities in Panorama City had “lost resistance while she was using it, causing her to fall backwards and injure herself”. As a result, Ontiveros filed a suit, asserting causes of action for premises liability and strict products liability.

The trial court granted summary adjudication on both issues in favor of 24 Hour Fitness, but only appealed the judgment on her products liability claim.

On review, the appellate court clarified the distinction under the strict liability doctrine between providing a product for use by a consumer and providing a service.

The court reasoned that the provision of exercise machines was incident to the center’s provision of fitness services, and that Ontiveros’ decision not to avail herself to the additional services provided by the center did not alter that conclusion.

Further, the appellate court ruled that a fitness center, which provided exercise equipment for its members to use, was not part of the chain of distribution for purposes of products liability.

The Second District Court of Appeal therefore affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary adjudication in favor of the 24 Hour Fitness USA Inc. The court explained that the availability of exercise equipment to Susana Ontiveros pursuant to her membership agreement with the gym was incident to the gym’s provision of fitness services.