|
4560 An agreement by which a member of a health club promised that the club will not be liable for injury resulting from the negligence of anyone else using it, and that in any such claim the member signing the agreement would hold the club harmless except for injury caused solely by the negligence of the club, did not prevent liability from being imposed on the club for an injury that occurred when the member's foot became caught on a sticky substance on a treadmill at the club; since the presence of a sticky substance on a treadmill is not an inherent risk of using the device for exercise, implied assumption of the risk did not apply to prevent imposition of a duty on the club.CitationZIPUSCH v LA WORKOUT (Sticky Treadmill) 155 CA4 1281 [See: Tunkl v Regents 60 C2 92; Paralift v Superior Court 23 CA4 748; Benedek v PLC 104 CA4 1351, T/AT 2/03; Leon v Family Fitness 61 CA4 1227, T/AT 4/98; Knight v Jewett 3 C4 296, T/AT 10/92]
|
|
