 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bhardwaj v. 24 Hour Fitness3/8/2002
As modified March 13, 2002.
RAJAN BHARDWAJ, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT,
v.
24 HOUR FITNESS, INC., DEFENDANT, CROSS-COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT. BODY MASTERS SPORTS INDUSTRIES, INC., DEFENDANT, CROSS-COMPLAINANT AND APPELLANT.
(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV775100)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Premo, Acting P.J.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Plaintiff, Rajan Bhardwaj appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendant, 24 Hour Fitness, Inc. (24 Hour) after the trial court granted 24 Hour's motion for summary judgment. The trial court found that plaintiff's negligence causes of action were barred by a written release and that strict products liability did not apply to 24 Hour. Plaintiff appeals, arguing that the trial court erred on both issues as a matter of law. We shall affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was injured while using a piece of exercise equipment called a "Hack Squat" machine at the 24 Hour fitness facility in Mountain View. Plaintiff sued 24 Hour and Body Masters Sports Industries (Body Masters), the manufacturer of the Hack Squat machine. The complaint alleged three causes of action: general negligence, premises liability, and strict products liability. Both defendants answered and each filed a cross-complaint against the other for indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief. In its answer, 24 Hour asserted as affirmative defenses, (1) that plaintiff's negligence causes of action were barred by the exculpatory clause in plaintiff's membership agreement, and (2) that 24 Hour could not be held strictly liable because it provided "recreational services," not the sale or lease of a product.
Plaintiff moved for summary adjudication of the above-noted affirmative defenses. 24 Hour responded with a summary judgment motion based on the same defenses. Body Masters joined plaintiff's opposition. The trial court granted 24 Hour's summary judgment motion and denied plaintiff's motion as moot. The court's written order stated, "Plaintiff's negligence claim is barred by the express assumption of risk/release provision in his gym membership agreement. . . . As a separate matter, the doctrine of strict liability cannot be imposed against 24 Hour Fitness because its primary objective is to provide a service. (See Ferrari v. Grand Canyon Dories (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 248, 258-259 [(Ferrari)]) . . . ." Judgment was entered in favor of 24 Hour. Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal. Body Masters filed a timely notice of cross-appeal hoping to save its cross-complaint against 24 Hour. (Children's Hospital v. Sedgwick (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1780, 1787-1788.) The judgment in favor of 24 Hour is final as to it, and so is appealable, even though the action remains pending between plaintiff and the second defendant, Body Masters. (Estate of Gonzalez (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1598, 1601-1602.)
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD OF REVIEW
The well settled standard of review for appeals from summary judgment is independent review. (Hagen v. Hickenbottom (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 168, 172.) The appellate court independently determines the merits of the motion. The appellate court must strictly scrutinize the moving papers, and liberally construe the declarations and evidence of the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|