Earlier this month, an appellate court in California heard a case brought by a woman and her husband against the gym at which they were both members after the woman was injured while working out at the facility. In the case, Chavez v. 24 Hour Fitness, the plaintiff sustained a traumatic brain injury after being struck in the head by a workout machine. She sued the gym under several legal theories, including premises liability, product liability, traditional negligence, and gross negligence.
The evidence showed that there was preventative maintenance that the manufacturer of the machine suggested be performed. However, 24 Hour Fitness was not able to prove that the maintenance was performed routinely, and importantly it was unable to show the last time that the machine was serviced. 24 Hour Fitness was able to show some of the repair and service records, but those were incomplete and therefore inconclusive as to the issue of whether the recommended maintenance was actually completed.
Additionally, the plaintiffs put on several employees of the gym who testified that several machines were usually out of repair at any given time, and that they have seen cables snap while customers were using the machines.