CO-OP/CONDO GYM LIABILITY WAIVERS

In Jason Roer v. 150 West End Avenue Owners Corp., Roer brought an action seeking damages for personal injuries sustained on June 15, 2008, in the basement exercise room of the apartment building where he and his wife reside. Roer claimed that while on a treadmill, he was injured by a loose exercise ball. He alleged that his injuries were caused by the negligence of the cooperative corporation; managing agent Cooper Square Realty; and fellow resident Carol Sarnoff.
 
Surveillance camera footage showed Roer jogging on a treadmill. An exercise ball was in a stationary position immediately to the right of the treadmill. Sarnoff, who was also in the exercise room, walked up to Roer and briefly greeted him. As she passed Roer, she rolled the ball out of her way and toward a weight machine several feet behind the treadmill. After Sarnoff rolled the ball, the ball slowly rebounded toward the treadmill Roer was on. Less than one minute later, the ball got sucked under the belt of the treadmill. The rear of the treadmill was lifted off the ground, propelling the machine forward several feet, where it hit the wall, causing Roer to fall.

Jogging to the Judiciary

Roer alleged that the co-op failed to take reasonable measures to ensure that the exercise ball would be secured when not in use. Further, Roer alleged that Sarnoff was negligent in her placement of the exercise ball when she moved it out of her way.

Even with a waiver, the issue

is still whether the exercise

room was operated in a safe

and reasonable manner.

 
The co-op offered several reasons why Roer's complaint should be dismissed. First, Roer's claim was overly speculative because even if a rack or other storage existed for the ball, it may not have been secured by the last person to use it. Second, the mere presence of the ball on the floor was not the proximate cause of Roer's accident; rather, it was the movement of the ball toward the treadmill, which was not the responsibility of the co-op. Third, the co-op could not be held liable for Roer's accident because Roer signed a waiver. Lastly, the co-op argued that the manner of the accident was entirely unforeseeable.

Sarnoff argued that there was no evidence that she was negligent as she merely moved the exercise ball out of her way. She also asserted that the accident was unforeseeable.
 
In order to recover on a claim for negligence, Roer would have to show that there was a duty on the part of the defendants owed to Roer, that the defendants breached this duty, that Roer was injured, and that the defendants' breach was the proximate cause of Roer's injuries. In other words, that the injury would not have occurred in the absence of the defendants' actions.

Oh, Say, Can You Foresee

The court also addressed the "forseeability" arguments and explained that the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, previously observed that "although the precise manner in which the harm occurred need not be foreseeable, liability does not attach unless the harm is within the class of reasonably foreseeable hazards that the duty exists to prevent."

Next page: Steps to Take to Void Running to Court >>