Spin Cycle Personal Injury Case Continues; Claim Not Barred By Release

In Serin v. Soulcycle Holdings, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08179 (App. Div. 1st Dept. Dec. 6, 2016), the Appellate Division unanimously reversed a lower court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

The court held:

Although defendant made a prima facie showing that the spin cycle on which plaintiff was injured was not defective and that defendant had not created or had notice of any such defect, issues of fact exist as to whether defendants were negligent in failing to properly instruct plaintiff, a first-time spin cycler, in the operation of the cycle and of the nature of the risks involved. For these same reasons, issues of fact also exist as to plaintiff’s assumption of concealed or unreasonably increased risks.

The court also found (without analysis) that plaintiff’s claim was not barred by the release signed by plaintiff, citing General Obligations Law § 5-326.

That statute provides:

Every covenant, agreement or understanding in or in connection with, or collateral to, any contract, membership application, ticket of admission or similar writing, entered into between the owner or operator of any pool, gymnasium, place of amusement or recreation, or similar establishment and the user of such facilities, pursuant to which such owner or operator receives a fee or other compensation for the use of such facilities, which exempts the said owner or operator from liability for damages caused by or resulting from the negligence of the owner, operator or person in charge of such establishment, or their agents, servants or employees, shall be deemed to be void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable.

Share This: