Dunlap v. Fortress Corp. and Covenant Health

CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedOctober 27, 2000
DocketE2000-00103-COA-R3-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Dunlap v. Fortress Corp. and Covenant Health (Dunlap v. Fortress Corp. and Covenant Health) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dunlap v. Fortress Corp. and Covenant Health, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE October 2, 2000 Session

MARTHA DUNLAP v. FORTRESS CORPORATION and COVENANT HEALTH

Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County No. 2-48-98 Hon. Harold Wimberly, Circuit Judge

FILED OCTOBER 27, 2000

No. E2000-00103-COA-R3-CV

Plaintiff’s action for personal injuries sustained at defendant’s fitness center was dismissed by the Trial Court because plaintiff’s agreement with the center contained an exculpatory clause. We vacate the Judgment.

Tenn. R. App. P.3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court vacated.

HERSCHEL PICKENS FRANKS , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HOUSTON M. GODDARD , P.J., and D. MICHAEL SWINEY, J., joined.

Wayne A. Ritchie, II and Debra C. Poplin, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

F. Michael Fitzpatrick, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Defendant-Appellee.

OPINION

In this action, plaintiff alleged that on January 29, 1997, she was using the exercise facilities at the defendant’s fitness Center and was tripped by a piece of rubber matting on the floor near the walking track, causing her multiple injuries. She further alleged that the matting constituted an unreasonably dangerous condition of the premises, and that defendant’s employees were negligent in leaving the matting on the floor which was the proximate cause of her injuries. Among the defenses raised by defendant in response to plaintiff’s complaint, was the assertion that plaintiff expressly assumed the risk based upon her written contract with defendant. The contract contains an exculpatory clause which reads as follows:

MEMBER RELEASES AND DISCHARGE S CENTER, ITS SHAREHOLD ERS, DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES OR CAUSES OF ACTION FOR PERSONAL INJURY TO MEMBER OR MEMBER’S CHILD OR CHILDREN RESULTING FROM OR ARISING OUT OF USE OF OR PARTICIPATION IN ANY OF CENTER’S FACILITIES OR PROGRAM S.

Defendant then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which the Trial Court granted.

When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, this Court must take the strongest legitimate view of the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party, allow all reasonable inferences in favor of that party, and discard all countervailing evidence. Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208 (Tenn. 1993). Summary judgment is only proper where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Shadrick v. Coker, 963 S.W.2d 726 (Tenn. 1998). Where a question of law is involved, no presumption of correctness attaches to the Trial Court’s judgment. Union Carbide Corp., v. Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87 (Tenn. 1993).

Defendant asserts that the exculpatory clause is valid, and relies upon the cases of Empress Health and Beauty Spa, Inc., v. Turner, 503 S.W.2d 188 (Tenn. 1973), and Petry v. Cosmopolitan Spa International, Inc., 641 S.W.2d 202 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982). In these cases, the plaintiffs had been injured while using exercise equipment and had signed exculpatory clauses similar to the one now before the Court. In these cases the Court said the exculpatory clauses were valid and enforced them against the plaintiffs.

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the exculpatory clause in this case is invalid on the authority of Olson v. Molzen, 558 S.W.2d 429 (Tenn. 1977).

We pretermit the issue based on Molzen and conclude that the dispositive issue in this case is whether Tenn. Code Ann.§47-18-301 et seq. renders the exculpatory clause in this case unenforceable.

Subsequent to Empress Health and Beauty Spa, Inc., and Petry, the Tennessee Legislature passed legislation regarding health clubs as a part of the Consumer Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §47-18-301 et seq. Tenn. Code Ann. §47-18-303 states that a health club agreement which fails to conform to the requirements of the statute “shall be unenforceable against the buyer”.

The statute’s definition section, Tenn. Code Ann. §47-18-301 defines a “health club” as “any enterprise organized for profit, however styled, which offers on a regular, full time basis services or facilities for the development or preservation of physical fitness through exercise, weight control, or athletics.” The record demonstrates that this is precisely the type of facility that defendant

-2- was operating, and defendant is a for-profit corporation. However, Tenn. Code Ann. §47-18- 301(3)(B), excludes from the definition of “health club” any health club which is tax exempt under the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. §67-6-330(a)(19). But there is nothing in the record to indicate that defendant falls within this exception.

Tenn. Code Ann. §47-18-305 states:

47-18-305. Requirements for valid agreements. - (a) All health club agreements shall:

(1) Be in writing; (2) Be signed by the buyer; (3) Designate the date on which the buyer actually signed the agreement; and (4) Contain in boldface type of at least ten (10) points, in immediate proximity to the space reserved for the signature of the buyer, the following statement:

BUYER’S RIGHT TO CANCEL

YOU (THE BUYER) MAY CANCEL THIS AGREEMENT BY SENDING NOTICE OF YOUR WISH TO CANCEL TO THE HEALTH CLUB BEFORE MIDNIGHT OF THE THIRD DAY (EXCLUDING SATURDAYS, SUNDAYS, AND LEGAL HOLIDAYS) AFTER THE DAY YOU SIGNED THE AGREEMENT. THIS NOTICE MUST BE SENT BY REGISTERED MAIL TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:

_________________ _________________ _________________

WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE OF CANCELLATION, THE HEALTH CLUB WILL RETURN ANY PAYMENTS MADE AND ANY NOTE EXECUTED BY YOU IN CONNECTION WITH THE AGREEMENT.

(5)(A) Contain in boldface type of at least ten (10) points, the following statement: SHOULD YOU (THE BUYER) CHOOSE TO PAY THIS AGREEMENT IN FULL, BE AWARE THAT YOU ARE PAYING FOR FUTURE SERVICES AND MAY BE RISKING LOSS OF YOUR MONEY IN THE EVENT THIS HEALTH CLUB CEASES TO CONDUCT BUSINESS. (B) Contain in boldface type, the following statements in separated

-3- paragraphs: (I) IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER REMEDIES PROVIDED BY LAW, IN THE EVENT THIS HEALTH CLUB CEASES OPERATION AND FAILS TO OFFER YOU (THE BUYER) AN ALTERNATE LOCATION WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) MILES, WITH NO ADDITIONAL COST TO YOU, THEN NO FURTHER PAYMENTS SHALL BE DUE TO ANYONE, INCLUDING ANY PURCHASER OF ANY NOTE ASSOCIATED WITH OR CONTAINED IN THIS CONTRACT.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Shadrick v. Coker
963 S.W.2d 726 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1998)
Olson v. Molzen
558 S.W.2d 429 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1977)
Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston
854 S.W.2d 87 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1993)
Byrd v. Hall
847 S.W.2d 208 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1993)
Empress Health and Beauty Spa, Inc. v. Turner
503 S.W.2d 188 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1973)
Petry v. Cosmopolitan Spa International, Inc.
641 S.W.2d 202 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Dunlap v. Fortress Corp. and Covenant Health, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunlap-v-fortress-corp-and-covenant-health-tennctapp-2000.