Gayon v. Bally's Total Fitness Corp.

802 So. 2d 420, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17087, 2001 WL 1539126
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 5, 2001
Docket3D01-425
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 802 So. 2d 420 (Gayon v. Bally's Total Fitness Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gayon v. Bally's Total Fitness Corp., 802 So. 2d 420, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17087, 2001 WL 1539126 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

802 So.2d 420 (2001)

Osvaldo GAYON, Appellant,
v.
BALLY'S TOTAL FITNESS CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 3D01-425.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

December 5, 2001.

Chasin & Baron; Kutner, Rubinoff, Bush & Lerner and Susan S. Lerner, Miami, for appellant.

George, Hartz, Lundeen, Fulmer, Johnstone, King & Stevens and Esther E. Galicia, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Before GREEN, SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final summary judgment. "[Exculpatory] clauses are enforceable only where and to the extent that the *421 intention to be relieved was made clear and unequivocal in the contract, and the wording must be so clear and understandable that an ordinary and knowledgeable party will know what he is contracting away." Covert v. S. Fla. Stadium Corp., 762 So.2d 938, 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (quoting Hertz Corp. v. David Klein Mfg., Inc., 636 So.2d 189, 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)), review denied, 786 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 2001). The exculpatory clause in the health club membership contract Gayon signed satisfies the clear and unequivocal language requirement. See Borden v. Phillips, 752 So.2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Banfield v. Louis, 589 So.2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Cf. Fairchild v. W.O. Taylor Commercial Refrigeration & Elec. Co., 403 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (assuming clause intended as exculpation of liability, clause, printed in very small print and sandwiched between other sentences dealing with performance, is unenforceable). In addition, the application of the public interest test shows that the clause is valid, enforceable and not against public policy. See Goeden v. CM III, Inc., 756 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Banfield, 589 So.2d at 441.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Fresnedo v. Porky's Gym III
271 So. 3d 1185 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019)
Obsessions in Time v. Jewelry Exchange Venture
247 So. 3d 50 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Stacy Sanislo v. Give Kids The World, Inc.
157 So. 3d 256 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2015)
Diodato v. Islamorada Asset Management., Inc.
138 So. 3d 513 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
UCF Athletics Ass'n v. Plancher
121 So. 3d 1097 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Tatman v. SPACE COAST KENNEL CLUB, INC.
27 So. 3d 108 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Carl Delano Torjagbo v. United States
285 F. App'x 615 (Eleventh Circuit, 2008)
Cain v. Banka
932 So. 2d 575 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
802 So. 2d 420, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17087, 2001 WL 1539126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gayon-v-ballys-total-fitness-corp-fladistctapp-2001.