SIMONE PRYCE and DAVID PRYCE v. TOWN SPORTS INTERNATIONAL LLC

Background

Simone Pryce sued Town Sports International, LLC, doing business as New York Sports Club, after she injured her shoulder during a personal-training session on July 2, 2015. She alleged that personal trainer Jonathan Reyes walked about 12 feet away while she performed an exercise with a medicine ball and therefore failed to maintain a safe and controlled exercise environment. David Pryce asserted a related loss-of-consortium claim based on his wife’s alleged injury.

The parties agreed that New York law governed the claims. Before trial, the plaintiffs dropped claims for failure to supervise, negligent supervision, and violation of New York General Business Law § 349. The remaining claims were Simone Pryce’s negligence claim and David Pryce’s loss-of-consortium claim. The court conducted a bench trial from February 3 through February 6, 2020, and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52.

Evidence and factual findings

The court generally credited Simone Pryce’s account of the incident and found her more credible than Reyes on important issues. It found that Reyes demonstrated the exercise before Pryce performed it, that he initially stood close enough to observe her, and that he later walked away to speak with another gym patron. Pryce felt a pull in her shoulder after completing repetitions on one side and stopped the exercise. The court also found that Reyes ended the session and stretched her after she reported the problem.

The court considered competing medical opinions. Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Sharef Hassan, testified that an overhead exercise could have caused Pryce’s shoulder injuries. NYSC’s expert, Dr. Andrew Bazos, testified that the injuries were consistent with age-related wear and tear rather than an isolated event. The court found both experts credible but concluded that Bazos’s explanation was better supported by the trial evidence. The court stated, however, that its decision principally rested on the failure to prove negligence, making much of the expert testimony unnecessary to the result.

Legal standards

Under New York negligence law, Pryce had to prove that NYSC or Reyes owed her a duty of care, breached that duty, and proximately caused her injuries. She had to prove these elements by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that they were more likely than not true.

The court also applied New York’s primary assumption-of-risk doctrine. That doctrine generally treats a person who voluntarily participates in a sports or recreational activity as accepting risks that are known, apparent, reasonably foreseeable, and inherent in the activity. It does not protect conduct that conceals risks or unreasonably increases them. In a gym setting, the defendant still must use reasonable care not to increase the risks beyond those ordinarily associated with the activity.

Analysis

NYSC sought judgment as a matter of law under Rule 52(c), arguing that Pryce had assumed the risks of exercising with weights and using the gym’s equipment and personal-training services. The court denied that request. It explained that assumption-of-risk questions are generally factual and that the evidence presented disputes about whether Reyes increased the risks beyond those ordinarily associated with weight training.

After resolving the factual disputes at trial, however, the court concluded that the negligence claim failed. Even accepting Pryce’s testimony that Reyes walked away, the court found no evidence that she lacked consent to perform the exercise, that Reyes concealed a risk, or that his conduct unreasonably increased the risk inherent in the activity. Pryce had acknowledged that physical exercise and weightlifting carried risks, voluntarily joined NYSC, purchased personal-training sessions, and performed the exercise Reyes demonstrated.

The court found that the exercise involved slowly moving an 8-pound medicine ball, was not shown to be inherently dangerous or unsuitable for Pryce, and was not performed with excessive weight, speed, jerking movements, or improper form. Pryce did not show that Reyes instructed her to perform the exercise incorrectly, that the weight was too heavy, or that she used improper technique. The court also found no evidence that Reyes’s presence next to her would have prevented the injury.

The court rejected reliance on res ipsa loquitur, a rule that can allow negligence to be inferred from an event that ordinarily would not happen without negligence. The plaintiffs had not presented evidence satisfying the rule’s required elements. The court also declined to infer negligence from Dr. Hassan’s testimony because it could not conclude that the demonstrated exercise caused the claimed shoulder injuries.

Disposition

The court concluded that Simone Pryce failed to prove that NYSC breached a duty of care by increasing the risks associated with her physical training. It therefore held that NYSC was entitled to judgment on her negligence claim. Because David Pryce’s loss-of-consortium claim was derivative of Simone Pryce’s negligence claim, NYSC was also entitled to judgment on that claim.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of NYSC, terminate all pending motions, adjourn remaining dates, and close the case.