The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently decided in the case of Marcinczyk v. State of New Jersey Police Training Commission that an agreement to waive any liability against a public entity is unenforceable as a matter of public policy. In Marcinczyk, the plaintiff was a police trainee and was mandated to attend a police academy for training. In applying for the police academy, Mr. Marcinczyk was required to sign a waiver which purportedly prevented him from suing the Police Academy for pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of wages, injuries, permanent disabilities or pecuniary losses as a result of injuries or losses he may sustain during the course of his training or participation in the police academy. Of course, Mr. Marcinczyk was injured during the course of his training and commenced suit.

Although the Supreme Court of New Jersey recently upheld similar type clauses for private institutions such as health clubs and gyms, the Court refused to uphold such a waiver of liability when the beneficiary of such clause is a public entity. Specifically, the Supreme Court of New Jersey referenced New Jersey's Tort Claims Act, which is a statute enacted to permit injured citizens to seek compensation from public entities for negligence in "narrowly defined circumstances." The Supreme Court further reasoned that because a statute specifically allows for recovery of monetary damages under certain circumstances when there is negligence by a public entity or public entity's employees, it would be contrary to public policy to allow a contractual provision to bargain away the right to sue. The court further noted that the Tort Claims Act provides specific immunities to the public entity and as such, in throwing out the contractual provision, the court did not impose liability upon the public entity. The court merely remanded the case back to the trial court for purposes of determining if any of the specific statutory immunities applied.

As set forth on our website and in prior blogs, the Tort Claims Act provides specific immunities to public entities where injuries occur as a result of that public entity's negligence. In our view, the court's decision here was a correct one, in that New Jersey's legislature has already dealt with liability of public entities through the enactment of the Tort Claims Act. If you have any question as to whether or not you are legally entitled to sue a public or private entity for negligence, consult a skilled attorney immediately in order to protect your rights.

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently decided a case wherein it held that waivers of liability in health club contracts and gym membership contracts are valid and enforceable. In Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises, LLC, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's case because the contract that the contract signed with the defendant health club contained a "waiver of liability" and, as such, she was unable to be compensated for her pain and suffering, disability and impairment and loss of enjoyment of life for injuries sustained while exercising at the health club.

In the above-referenced case, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant health club to utilize the health club's premises, machines and staff in exchange for a monthly payment. Contained within the contract that the plaintiff signed was a paragraph which purported to prevent the health club from being responsible for any and all injuries sustained by the plaintiff (or any users of the health club) while at the health club or using their facilities. Although contracts of this type have existed for many years, it was generally the long standing rule in the State of New Jersey that parties to a contract could not obtain a waiver of liability for their own negligent acts. For instance, such contracts were upheld if an individual was hurt in the health club or suffered, for instance, a heart attack, while exercising where the injury was in no way related to the general negligence of the health club facility. However, liability against the health club would generally be upheld where the health club's actual negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.

In this recent case, the Supreme Court basically changed and clarified that long standing rule and concluded that such waivers of liability are fully enforceable even where the health club's alleged negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. For instance, in this Supreme Court case, the plaintiff was engaging in a spinning class when the handlebars on the spin bike became loose causing her to fall and sustain serious personal injury. The allegations were that the handlebars were not properly secured by the class instructor. As such, it was the health club's staff's negligence which proximately causes the plaintiff's injury.

The Court held that such a plaintiff may only maintain suit against the health club if it can be shown that the health club's behavior was reckless, intentional or willful and wanton as opposed to just general negligence. Importantly, the Court stopped short of providing blanket immunity to such health clubs when a waiver is signed. For instance, it is not clear whether the case allows for a lawsuit when a patron slips and falls on water in the lobby area of the health club while not engaging in any physical activity. Further, it is not clear whether or not other conditions of the property could give rise to a cause of action.

In light of the above, in the event you or a family member are injured as a result of exercise in a health club setting, it is important to seek the advise of a personal injury attorney who can provide you with proper guidance and fully protect your rights.