Benedek v. Plc Santa Monica, LLC

• Decision Date: 31 December 2002
• Docket Number: No. B157016.,B157016.
• Citation: 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 197,104 Cal. App. 4th 1351
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: Tom BENEDEK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PLC SANTA MONICA, LLC, Defendant and Respondent.

129 Cal.Rptr.2d 197

104 Cal.App.4th 1351

Tom BENEDEK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.PLC SANTA MONICA, LLC, Defendant and Respondent.

No. B157016.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5.

December 31, 2002.

Law Offices of Gregory F. Stannard and Gregory F. Stannard, Santa Monica, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Offices of Koester & Beavers, Glenn Rosen and Suzanne Klump, Santa Ana, for Defendant and Respondent.

GRIGNON, Acting P.J.

An individual signed a waiver of liability as part of a membership agreement at a health club.The waiver of liability released the health club from liability for all personal injuries sustained by a member on the premises "whether using exercise equipment or not."The health club member suffered personal injuries due to the negligence of the health club, while on the club's premises, but not using the exercise equipment.We conclude the express language of the unambiguous release of the health club from all premises liability defines its scope.In this case, the broad language of the release applies to liability of the health club for the fitness-unrelated personal injuries suffered by the health club member.We affirm the summary judgment in favor of the health club.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff and appellantTom Benedek was a member of a health club located in the Loews Santa Monica Hotel.Defendant and respondent PLC Santa Monica, LLC("Pritikin") had purchased the health club in 1997 and renamed it the Pritikin Longevity Center and Spa.Pritikin required each existing member of the health club to sign a new membership agreement with Pritikin in order to continue health club membership.In September 1998, Benedek signed the two-page membership agreement.The entire agreement is reproduced as an appendix to this opinion.

The membership agreement is comprised of 11 itemized paragraphs.In the introductory paragraph, Pritikin offered Benedek "the use of its services and facilities in conformance with the terms and conditions set forth below."Paragraph 5 explained that Benedek's membership gave him "access to facilities and services during the designated hours of operation."Paragraph 7 is entitled "Waiver of Liability."In an initial paragraph, Benedek "acknowledges and understands that [he] is using the facilities and services of the HOTEL and SPA at [his] own risk."Paragraph 7 continued as follows: "The SPA and HOTEL and their owners, officers, employees, agents, contractors and affiliates shall not be liable—and the MEBER hereby expressly waives any claim of liability—for personal/bodily injury or damages—which occur to any MEMBER, or any guest of any MEMBER, or for any loss of or injury to person or property.This waiver includes, but is not limited to any loss, damage or destruction of the personal property of the MEMBER or the MEMBERS' guest(s)and is intended to be a complete release of any responsibility for personal injuries and/or property loss/damage sustained by any MEMBER or any guest of any MEMBER while on the HOTEL and/or SPA premises, whether using exercise equipment or not."(Original underscoring.)

On March 28, 2000, Benedek was injured at the health club prior to beginning his regular workout.Benedek intended to use an elliptical training machine that ordinarily faced a television set suspended on a rack above head level.When Benedek approached the elliptical training machine, he noticed the television set was facing away from the elliptical training machine.In an attempt to return the television set to its normal position, Benedek touched the rack on which the television lay.In response to this movement the television began to slide off the rack over Benedek's head.Benedek attempted to hold the television in place; however, he was unable to bear the weight of the television and injured his knee.

Benedek brought this action against Pritikin, alleging a single cause of action for "negligence [and] premises liability."Pritikin answered the complaint, raising the affirmative defenses of assumption of risk and waiver or release.Pritikin then moved for summary judgment, on the basis that the written release in Benedek's membership agreement expressly negated any duty Pritikin owed Benedek.Benedek submitted no evidence in opposition to the motion, with the exception of excerpts from his deposition setting forth the circumstances of his injury.After a hearing, the trial court granted the summary judgment motion, concluding the written release clearly and unambiguously defeated Benedek's lawsuit.Judgment was entered, and Benedek filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

Standard of Review

"`A defendant is entitled to summary judgment if the record establishes as a matter of law that none of the plaintiffs asserted causes of action can prevail'(Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn.(1988)46 Cal.3d 1092, 1107, [252 Cal.Rptr. 122, 762 P.2d 46], citations omitted.)The pleadings define the issues to be considered on a motion for summary judgment.(Sadlier v. Superior Court(1986)184 Cal.App.3d 1050, 1055, .)As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant must present facts to negate an essential element or to establish a defense.Only then will the burden shift to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable, material issue of fact.(AARTS Productions, Inc. v. Crocker National Bank(1986)179 Cal.App.3d 1061, 1064-1065, .)"(Ferrari v. Grand Canyon Dories(1995)32 Cal. App.4th 248, 252, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 65.)"There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof."(Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.(2001)25 Cal.4th 826, 850, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 24 P.3d 493.)We review orders granting or denying a summary judgment motion de novo.(FSR Brokerage, Inc. v. Superior Court(1995)35 Cal.App.4th 69, 72, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 404;Union Bank v. Superior Court(1995)31 Cal.App.4th 573, 579, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 653.)We exercise "an independent assessment of the correctness of the trial court's ruling, applying the same legal standard as the trial court in determining whether there are any genuine issues of material fact or whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."(Iverson v. Muroc Unified School Dist.(1995)32 Cal.App.4th 218, 222, 38 Cal. Rptr.2d 35.)

Negligence

An action in negligence requires a showing that the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty, the defendant breached the duty, and the breach was a proximate cause of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff.(Allabach v. Santa Clara County Fair Assn.(1996)46 Cal.App.4th 1007, 1011, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 330.)A release may negate the duty element of a negligence action.Contract principles apply when interpreting a release, and "normally the meaning of contract language, including a release, is a legal question."(Solis v. Kirkwood Resort Co.(2001)94 Cal. App.4th 354, 360, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 265.)"Where, as here, no conflicting parol evidence is introduced concerning the interpretation of the document, `construction of the instrument is a question of law, and the appellate court will independently construe the writing.'"(Paralift, Inc. v. Superior Court(1993)23 Cal.App.4th 748, 754, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 177.)"It therefore follows that we must independently determine whether the release in this case negated the duty element of plaintiff[`s] cause[ ] of action."(Allabach v. Santa Clara County Fair Assn., supra,46 Cal. App.4th at p. 1011, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 330.)

Releases

A written release may exculpate a tortfeasor from future negligence or misconduct.(Bennett v. United States Cycling Federation(1987)193 Cal.App.3d 1485, 1490, 239 Cal.Rptr. 55.)To be effective, such a release "must be clear, unambiguous, and explicit in expressing the intent of the subscribing parties."(Ibid.)The release need not achieve perfection.(Paralift, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra,23 Cal.App.4th at p. 755, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 177.)¹Exculpatory agreements in the recreational sports context do not implicate the public interest and therefore are not void as against public policy.(Lund v. Bally's Aerobic Plus, Inc.(2000)78 Cal. App.4th 733, 739, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 169;Allan v. Snow Summit, Inc.(1996)51 Cal. App.4th 1358, 1373, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 813.) the determination of whether a release contains ambiguities is a matter of contractual construction.(Paralift, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra,23 Cal.App.4th at pp. 754-755, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 177.)"An ambiguity exists when a party can identify an alternative, semantically reasonable, candidate of meaning of a writing.[Citations.]An ambiguity can be patent, arising from the face of the writing, or latent, based on extrinsic evidence."(Solis v. Kirkwood Resort Co., supra,94 Cal. App.4th at p. 360, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 265.)The circumstances under which a release is executed can give rise to an ambiguity that is not apparent on the face of the release.(SeeBennett v. United States Cycling Federation, supra,193 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1490-1491, 239 Cal.Rptr. 55.)If an ambiguity as to the scope of the release exists, it should normally be construed against the drafter.(Civ.Code, § 1654;Solis v. Kirkwood Resort Co., supra,94 Cal.App.4th at p. 360, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 265.)

In the absence of extrinsic evidence, the scope of a release is determined by the express language of the release.(Sanchez v. Bally's Total Fitness Corp.(1998)68 Cal.App.4th 62, 69, 79 Cal. Rptr.2d 902.)The express terms of the release must be applicable to the particular negligence of the defendant, but every possible specific act of negligence of the defendant need not be spelled out in the agreement.(Id. at pp. 68-69, 79 Cal. Rptr.2d 902.)When a release expressly releases the defendant from any liability, it is not necessary that the plaintiff have had a specific knowledge of the...