In 2009, Susan Butler sought personal training at Planet Fitness in Branford, Connecticut She hired the head personal trainer, John Saville, for a total of ten sessions. During their fourth session, Saville put Butler onto a Bosu Ball (with the platform side up) and walked away. Butler lost her balance and fell, landing on her right hip and wrist. According to her lawyer, Saville did not help her up. Butler’s husband took her to the doctor and discovered fractures in her hip and wrist; she was immediately taken in an ambulance to a hospital where she had a total of four surgeries over a span of two weeks. Butler and her lawyers claimed that both the trainer and Planet Fitness were negligent and liable for the serious injuries she sustained during personal training. Planet Fitness blamed Butler for her own injuries, claiming that Butler had signed a waiver and understood the risks before proceeding with training (Nolan, 2015).

[Butler v. John Saville and Planet Fitness Holdings, LLC, 2014]

Issue

Were John Saville and Planet Fitness negligent when providing personal training services to Susan Butler?

Rules

There are four elements that must be present in order for negligence to exist: (1) a duty of care was owed to the plaintiff, (2) there was a breach in duty of care, (3) the breach caused the plaintiff’s injury, and (4) plaintiff suffered a legally recognizable injury (Miller, 2014). Duty of care is central to these elements, meaning that a tort may be committed if a person does not exercise a reasonable amount of care in his or her actions. Duty of care is measured in court according to the reasonable person standard, an objective standard that asks what a reasonable person would have done in the same circumstances as the defendant (Miller, 2014).

The duty of care may be even more pronounced in this case because a personal trainer could arguably be considered a professional—“if an individual has knowledge, skill, or training superior to that of an ordinary person” (Miller, 2014, p. 117). If Saville is considered a professional in his field, he would be judged in court by the reasonable professional standard for his field, and could be sued for malpractice. At the very least, he can be judged by a higher standard than that of a reasonable person.

Another important rule in this case is the assumption of risk, which is what the defendant’s lawyer claims as their defense to negligence. This asserts that the plaintiff had knowledge and voluntary assumption of the risk by signing a waiver, and they are therefore not liable. In court, assumption of risk is a legitimate defense that can disprove a negligence case (Miller, 2014).

Analysis

John Saville and Planet Fitness were negligent while providing their services to Butler because they breached their duty of care. In the fitness world, a certified personal trainer is likely the highest level of expertise that an average person can employ. As head trainer at a multi-national gym, Saville could be considered a trusted employee with a certain amount of responsibility for his clients. As a fitness expert, his conduct did not reflect the expertise that his title represents.

Saville put Butler on an unstable surface without ensuring her safety. While a reasonable professional (or a reasonable fitness center) might allow a client to assume the risks of minor injuries associated with fitness training, it is an unreasonable claim that multiple fractures on multiple body parts are an obvious risk that the client must assume. Even after the injury occurred, Saville allegedly left Butler injured and did nothing further to alleviate the damages that occurred on his watch.

Saville’s breach of his duty of care regarding the proper and safe use of a Bosu Ball led to Butler’s fall and injury, and it would be unreasonable for a client to be responsible for injuries obtained due to improper instruction. Butler sought Saville’s services to improve her fitness and instead suffered broken bones. A reasonable person would not assume that broken bones were a possibility with supervision in a controlled gym environment. This is why Butler could not have assumed the risk of this kind of serious injury—the action of balancing on a Bosu Ball is not accompanied by great amounts of risk when used safely and under the care of a professional. In fact, the Bosu Ball owner’s manual advises against standing on the platform—“standing on the platform side of the BOSU® Balance Trainer is not recommended, as this information is also stamped on the bottom of the unit” (“Frequently Asked Questions”, n.d.). It is clear that Saville did not have the sufficient knowledge to safely utilize this device in his training.

Conclusion

In 2014, the Superior Court Judge Jon Blue sided with the plaintiff, stating that “thousands, if not millions, of ordinary people go to gyms like Planet Fitness and there is a societal expectation that such activities will be reasonably safe” (Nolan, 2015, para. 11). Blue also disagreed with the defendant’s claim that the use of a Bosu Ball came with inherent risks. They went to mediation and Butler was given a settlement of $750,000 (Nolan, 2015).

The court ruling was fair and indicated that negligence had occurred by Planet Fitness and its head trainer; Butler was given compensatory damages for her injuries sustained. It is unfortunate that Planet Fitness did not take responsibility for their breach in duty of care in a public way. The case underscores the fact that establishments like Planet Fitness are just corporations, and not all personal trainers have the required skills or knowledge to be trusted by the average gym patron. However, the court ruling was fair and provided the plaintiff with the damages that she deserved.

pur-new-sol

Related Questions