Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ketler v. PFPA, LLC

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle

June 3, 2015

DESHAUN KETLER and BRITTANY KETLER, his wife, Plaintiffs,
PFPA, LLC, a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Planet Fitness, and PLANET FITNESS EQUIPMENT, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendants.

Submitted: April 17, 2015

Upon Defendant PFPA, LLC's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings GRANTED


DeShaun Ketler and his wife, Brittany Ketler, have filed suit against PFPA, LLC (a Delaware corporation doing business as Planet Fitness) and Planet Fitness Equipment, LLC. Defendant PFPA has filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Defendant Planet Fitness Equipment takes no position.

In consideration of Motion for Judgment of the Pleadings of Defendant PFPA, LLC, Plaintiffs' response in opposition thereto, PFPA's supplemental response and reply, and Plaintiffs' supplemental response in opposition, the Court finds as follows:

1.Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on December 24, 2014. They allege that, on April 25, 2013, DeShaun Ketler sustained personal injuries at Planet Fitness in Wilmington, Delaware when a cable broke on a seated rowing machine he was using.

2. PFPA filed its Answer asserting primary assumption of the risk as an affirmative defense based on the Planet Fitness membership agreement ("Membership Agreement") signed by DeShaun Ketler on January 8, 2010. PFPA attached the Membership Agreement as an exhibit to its Answer.

3. Specifically, the Membership Agreement contains a release of liability and acknowledgment of assumption of the risk ("Release") as follows (with emphasis added):

I understand and expressly agree that my use of this Planet Fitness facility or any other Planet Fitness facility, involves the risk of injury to me or my guest whether caused by me or not. I understand that these risks can range from minor injuries to major injuries including death. In consideration of my participation in the activities and use of the facilities offered by Planet Fitness, I understand and voluntarily accept this risk and agree that Planet Fitness, its officers, directors, members, agents and independent contractors will not be liable for any injury, including, without limitation, personal, bodily, or mental injury, economic loss or any damage to you, your spouse, domestic partner, guests, unborn child or relatives, resulting from the negligence of Planet Fitness or anyone on Planet Fitness' behalf whether related to exercise or not. Accordingly, I do hereby forever release and discharge Planet Fitness from any and all claims, demands, injuries, damages, actions or causes of action. I further understand and acknowledge that Planet Fitness does not manufacture fitness or other equipment in its facilities, but purchases and/or leases equipment and therefore Planet Fitness may not be held liable for defective products.

4. DeShaun Ketler concedes that he purchased a Planet Fitness gym membership and agreed to all of the terms in the Membership Agreement. He does not dispute that he signed it.

5.A party may move for judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to delay trial.[1] "The nonmoving party is entitled to the benefit of any inferences that may fairly be drawn from its pleading."[2] For purposes of considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, all facts must be accepted as true and all reasonable inferences must be construed in favor of the non-moving party.[3] Exhibits to pleadings are considered part of the pleadings and therefore this motion does not convert to one for summary judgment. In a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court must accept, as true, all well-pleaded allegations and extend reasonable inferences to the non-moving party.

6.PFPA moves for judgment on the pleadings based on the Release. PFPA does not concede negligence but argues that, to the extent Plaintiffs allege the cable broke due to PFPA's negligence, the Release bars Plaintiffs' recovery.

7. A general release allowing a party to avoid its own negligence is permissible under Delaware law. A release is valid if it is unambiguous, not unconscionable, and not against public policy.

8.The Delaware Superior Court recently addressed a contractual release of liability.[4] In Ellis, Judge Davis reiterated that, under Delaware law, releases for one's own negligence are upheld when the "language makes it crystal clear and unequivocal that the parties contemplated and specifically ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.