As people are cramming into gyms around the country trying to keep their New Year’s resolutions, it is a good time to remember the importance of carefully reading all the contracts we are presented with in our daily lives. In Hinkal v. Pardoe & Gold’s Gym, Inc. et al., the Pennsylvania Superior Court dealt with whether the agreement signed by the plaintiff when she became a member of Gold’s Gym released the defendants from liability.

Melinda Hinkal decided she wanted to join a gym to lose weight. After a six day the trial period, Hinkal decided to join the gym and signed a membership agreement. The agreement contained a section on the back of the form entitled “Waiver of Liability; Assumption of the Risk.” The section stated that the member recognized that working out at a gym involves “inherent risk of personal injury… and Member voluntarily assume all risk of personal injury to Member and waives any and all claims or actions” against the gym and its employees. Hinkal claimed that she was handed a “sheaf of papers” and was told to sign it. She claimed she never read it.

A few weeks later, she ruptured a disc in her in her neck while using an assisted pull-up machine under the supervision of defendant, Pardoe, her personal trainer.  Hinkal sued Pardoe for negligent instruction and supervision and the gym, under a theory of respondeat superior. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint. Hinkal then appealed and asked the superior court to set aside the membership agreement’s waiver clause, arguing that it was unreasonable for her to read this clause as it was inconspicuously placed on the back of the waiver.

The Superior Court addressed the standards for upholding liability waivers: whether the waiver infringes on public policy, and whether the agreement is a “contract of adhesion,” meaning that each party must have free bargaining abilities.

Hinkal argued that the membership agreement was comparable to liability release provisions that were printed on the back of ski tickets, which the Court previously struck down. The Court differentiated the signed membership agreement from the unsigned clause attached to the back of an amusement ticket, noting that there was no proof on the ticket that there was ever a meeting of the minds agreeing to the release. The membership agreement, on the other hand, was signed right under an unambiguous directive not to sign the agreement until reading both sides. The Court found that the membership agreement clearly expressed a straightforward statement that there was a meeting of the minds between the contracting parties.

As the Court aptly quoted, “The law of Pennsylvania is clear. One who is about to sign a contract has a duty to read that contract first.”

Thanks to Jim Stinsman for his contribution to this post and please write to Mike Bono for more information.