In a case of first impression as it relates to participating in group training classes and in what many consider a broadening of the assumption of the risk defense in sporting activities, the Missouri Appellate Court approved affording assumption of the risk defense to a gym that was offering group personal training sessions when a member of the group seriously injured herself while engaged in an exercise involving the lifting weights. The basic premise of the assumption of the risk doctrine is that “if a person voluntarily consents to accept the danger of a known and appreciated risk, that person may not sue another for failing to protect him from it.” Coomer v. Kan. City Royals Baseball Corp., 437 S.W.3d 184, 191 (Mo. banc 2014). In this case the court held that by participating in group personal training sessions, the plaintiff impliedly assumed the risk and danger of all known risk involved in the exercise.
Plaintiff was a longtime customer of WWBH’s client’s gym when she was seriously injured while exercising with her personal trainer. On the date of the incident, plaintiff was in a group session led by a personal trainer, who was having the participants perform a push press. This involved the participants placing weights on a barbell and pushing the weight above their heads. The participants initially performed the push press exercise without a problem, so the personal trainer increased the weight to the session on the repetition. During this exertion, plaintiff performed two reps without an issue, on the third and final rep, plaintiff felt a “pop” and fell to the floor.
Plaintiff contended a neck injury resulting from this incident. In fact, the plaintiff underwent a C6-C7 posterior foraminotomy and discectomy. However, this procedure did not resolve her complaints, and she eventually underwent a C6-C7 arthroplasty several years later.
As a result of this incident, plaintiff brought one cause of action for negligence against the gym contending it was negligent by: (1) not properly assessing her to discover her limitations which would have revealed her incapability of performing this exercise; and (2) the personal trainer failing to supervise her while she performed the push press.
At the trial the jury found in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $1,000,000 but assessed the plaintiff 70% of comparative fault thereby reducing her verdict to $300,000. The defendant gym (which was represented by WWBH principal Brad Hansman, Travis McDonald and Christine Lesicko) appealed the judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
In Missouri the implied primary assumption of the risk doctrine states, ‘if a person voluntarily consents to accept the danger of a known and appreciated risk, that person may not sue another for failing to protect him from it.’” Munoz v. Six Flags St. Louis, LLC, 670 S.W.3d 239, 243 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023) (quoting Coomer, 437 S.W.3d at 191). “The participant ‘is deemed to have assumed the risk of injury from the inherent risks of an activity that are known and understood.’” Id. (quoting Ferbet v. Hidden Valley Golf & Ski, Inc., 618 S.W.3d 596, 606 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020)). The classic example of primary implied assumption of the risk occurs when a spectator at a baseball game is injured by a ball or bat being hit or thrown into the stands. E.g., Anderson v. Kan. City Royals Baseball Club, 231 S.W.2d 170, 172 (Mo. 1950) (finding no negligence in not protecting all seats with wire netting); Hudson v. Kan. City Baseball Club, 164 S.W.2d 318, 320 (1942) (finding no duty to warn against known risk of baseballs being fouled or driven into the stands). However, prior to this appeal, there had been no published Missouri cases addressing the implied primary assumption of the risk in the context of instruction or personal training at a gym.
While a defendant is not liable for injures stemming from the inherent risks of an activity, a defendant “still owes a duty of reasonable care not to alter or increase such inherent risks.” Munoz, 670 S.W.3d at 244 (quoting Ferbet, 618 S.W.3d at 606). An inherent risk is one that is “‘structural or involved in the constitution or essential character’ of the activity in question; [it is] something ‘belonging by nature or settled habit.’” Id. (quoting Coomer, 437 S.W.3d at 202).
The Eastern District found in favor of the defendant gym and explained that plaintiff fully comprehended that the group trainer had not conducted an initial assessment of her and had not specifically assessed her ability to do the push press. This was a group training session, and the court found that it was perfectly obvious that the personal trainer would not be supervising each repetition of exercises that plaintiff performed, which is the very nature of a group exercise. Accordingly, plaintiff decided to participate in this exercise, fully comprehending not only the inherent risk of injury from engaging in that group activity but also, as a group activity, the plaintiff knew that the group trainer had not personally assessed her for the activity and was not going to be personally supervising her individually. Therefore, the judgment was reversed, and plaintiff’s negligence claim was barred by the doctrine of implied primary assumption of the risk and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant.
Plaintiff contended, in part, that WWBH’s client increased the risk by failing to conduct an initial assessment of plaintiff. If this was done, plaintiff argued that such assessments would have revealed that she was incapable of doing a barbell push press and that the exercise was “completely inappropriate” for her based on her range of motion and posture. Additionally, plaintiff argued that WWBH’s client increased the risk by the personal trainer failing to supervise her during this exercise. Moody v. Dynamic Fitness Management, Ltd., 2024 WL 3152095 (Mo.App. E.D., 2024)