Monthly Archives: July 2022

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Were Gym Operators Liable for Injury?

Yael Sebagh sued Capital Fitness, Inc. and alleged that she was injured when she attempted to disembark from a treadmill at a fitness center. As she stepped off the treadmill, Sebagh allegedly tripped or stepped on an electrical box that was located on the floor next to the treadmill, which caused her to fall and sustain personal injuries. The building was owned by Simon Property Group, L.P., and leased by Capital Fitness, Inc., and Capital Fitness-Roosevelt, LLC.

Capital interposed an answer which included the third affirmative defense of the primary assumption of risk doctrine, the fourth affirmative defense that the allegedly dangerous condition was open and obvious, and the sixth affirmative defense that Sebagh was comparatively negligent.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Was Owner Liable for Injury Near Ball Return?

Every case that arises from a recreation/sports-related injury must address several threshold questions. First, was the premises maintained in a reasonably safe condition? Second, did the owner have actual or constructive notice of an unsafe condition? Lastly, did the unsafe condition cause or contribute to the injury? A recent case, involving a hand injury at a bowling alley, addressed all 3 questions.

Jaime Muscato sued Spare Time Entertainment alleging a slip-and-fall at a bowling alley located on Route 9 in Clifton Park, New York. And claimed negligence in maintaining the premises, in that the floor near the ball return was excessively slippery, causing her to fall and sustain injury to her hand. Spare Time moved for summary judgment.

This was originally published on the SGR Blog.

Was “Emergency Doctrine” Implicated?

It takes two to make a car/pedestrian accident. Was the driver excused from liability under the emergency doctrine?

Aguilera De Diaz asserted that she was crossing the street, within the crosswalk, with the light in her favor, when she was struck by Richard D. Klausner’s vehicle, which was making a left turn. But Klausner countered that De Diaz, in fact, was not crossing the crosswalk from the northeast side of the street, but rather, out of nowhere, appeared to be coming from the west side of the street, causing impact to the left driver side of his vehicle as he was making a left turn.