Gym Equipment. Age limits on the use of gym equipment are valid if boards can support a claim that the equipment is dangerous for the restricted age group. In the unpublished case of Landesman v. The Keys, the court upheld the association's restrictions on the use of the gym and other facilities based on safety concerns:
The third set of rules prohibits children under 16 from entering the gym unless accompanied by an adult, and also prohibits children under 16 from using the gym equipment at any time. The Keys Association contends that these rules are necessary because children under 16 could be injured by the gym equipment. . . . The Keys Association has articulated a legitimate basis for prohibiting children under 16 from using the gym equipment. . .
Clubhouse Supervision. The Landesman court also found that the association's requirement of adult supervision was reasonable:
The second set of rules prohibits children under 15 from entering the clubhouse (which includes the billiards room, racquetball court, and possibly the sauna, steam room, and showers) unless accompanied by an adult. The Keys Association's articulated explanation is that these rules were implemented as a response to acts of damage and vandalism, and that the incidents of damage and vandalism subsided after the rules went into effect. In addition, with regard to the limits on use of the sauna, steam room, and showers, The Keys claims that this rule reasonably protects the safety of children under 15 who could be injured by use of the sauna or steam room if an adult is not present.
Parental Supervision. Although associations can require adult supervision so as to minimize the risk of injury, they cannot require that the adult supervisors be the parents of the children--any responsible adult can act as a supervisor.
Hold Harmless Agreement. Some associations require that those who use the common area health club/exercise facility sign a "hold harmless" agreement or "waiver of liability." Such agreements have been held to be valid and enforceable. In Lewis Operating Corp. v. Superior Court, a tenant suffered personal injuries while using a treadmill at a tenant-only common area exercise facility/health club amenity within the apartment complex. The tenant filed a lawsuit, which the landlord argued was without merit because the tenant had signed an agreement to waive all negligence claims arising from the tenant’s use of the health club facilities. The court agreed with the landlord and upheld the validity of the tenant’s signed waiver:
We conclude that where a landlord chooses to enhance its offering by providing an on-site health club or exercise facility that goes well beyond bare habitability, there is no reason why the landlord may not protect itself by requiring the tenant, as a condition of use of the amenity, to execute the same waiver or release of liability that could lawfully be required by the operator of a separate, stand-alone health club or exercise facility.
In Grebing v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., a health club's patron signed an agreement releasing the club from liability for injuries he might suffer while using the gym. He subsequently suffered injuries while using one of the club's rowing machines and sued. The court ruled in favor of the gym. The court concluded that the written release clearly stated that 24 Hour would not be liable for its own negligence, and there was no evidence of gross negligence.
An exculpatory contract releasing a party from liability for future ordinary negligence is valid unless it is prohibited by statute or impairs the public interest. (Tunkl v. Regents of University of California (1963) 60 Cal.2d 92, 96, 98.) Releases in the context of recreational sports or exercise facilities generally do not impair the public interest. (Capri v. L.A. Fitness International, LLC (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1078, 1084.) A valid release precludes liability for risks of injury within the scope of the release. (Paralift, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 748, 757.)
Recommendation: Although this case arose within the landlord-tenant context, courts often utilize similar standards when deciding analogous cases involving homeowner associations. Accordingly, boards may wish to consult with legal counsel about whether something similar would be appropriate for their association.
ASSISTANCE: Associations needing legal assistance can contact us. To stay current with issues affecting community associations, subscribe to the Davis-Stirling Newsletter.