Hinkal v. Pardoe

Melinda Hinkal filed a suit in a Pennsylvania state court against personal trainer Gavin Pardoe and Gold’s Gym, Inc., alleging that] she sustained a serious neck injury while using a piece of exercise equipment under * * * Pardoe’s direction [at Gold’s Gym. Hinkal] alleges that she suffered a rupture of the C5 disc in her neck requiring two separate surgeries. [Gold’s and Pardoe] filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [asserting] that as a member of Gold’s Gym
[Hinkal] signed * * * a Membership Agreement [that] contains legally valid “waiver of liability” provisions, which in turn, bar [her] claims.The trial court concluded that the waiver language set forth in Gold’s Membership Agreement was valid and enforceable.[Hinkal] filed a timely appeal to this [state intermediate appellate] Court.* * * *
* * * Appellant [Hinkal] questions whether the waiver on the back page of her membership agreement is valid and enforceable. The language on the back page of the agreement reads in pertinent part as follows:WAIVER OF LIABILITY; ASSUMPTION OF RISK:
Member acknowledges that the use of Gold’s Gym’s facilities, equipment, services and programs involves an inherent risk of personal injury to Member. * * * Member voluntarily agrees to assume all risks of personal injury to Member * * * and waives any and all claims or actions that Member may have against Gold’s Gym * * * and any * * * employees * * * for * **
injuries arising from use of any exer–cise equipment * * * in supervised or unsupervised activities.The Gold’s Gym Membership Agreement signed by Appellant further instructs:Do not sign this Agreement until you have read both sides. The terms on each side of this form are a part of this Agree–ment. * * * By signing this Agreement, Member acknowledges that This Agreement is a contract that will become legally binding upon its acceptance.The signature line follows immediately and the words “Notice: See other side for important information” appear in bold typeface below the signature line.


* * * Appellant * * * asserts that her claim is not barred by the “exclusion clause” on the back of the membership agreement. * * * Appellant contends the waiver is invalid because the waiver language appeared on the back of the agreement, she never read or was told to read the back of the agreement, and the clause was not “brought home” to her in a way that could suggest she was aware of the clause and its contents. However,
* * * Appellant admitted she did not read the agreement prior to signing it. * * * Her failure to read her agreement does not render it either invalid or unenforceable. The law of Pennsylvania is clear. One who is about to sign a contract has a duty to read that contract first. * * * It is well established that, in the absence of fraud, the failure to read a contract before signing it is an unavailing excuse or defense and cannot justify an avoidance, modification or nullification of the contract. [Emphasis added.]
[To support her claim, Appellant cites Beck-Hummel v. Ski Shawnee, Inc., a previous case before this court, but] the
signed Gold’s Gym membership agreement cannot be compared in any way to the unread and unsigned disclaimer on a ski facility ticket in [Beck-Hummel.]* * * *

* * * In [Beck-Hummel,] the release provision was contained on the face of an entry ticket purchased for use of a ski facility. The ticket did not require a signature or an express acknowledgment that its terms were read and accepted
before using the facility. Nothing about the ticket ensured that a purchaser would be aware of its release provision. The purchasers were mere recipients of the document. In short, there was not sufficient evidence to find conclusively that there was a meeting of the minds that part of the consideration for use of the facility was acceptance of a release provision. In stark contrast, here there is a written, signed and acknowledged agreement between the parties.* * * *

Here, without reading it, Appellant signed the membership agreement, which included an unambiguous directive not to sign before reading both sides, a clear pronouncement that the terms on both sides of the form are part of the agreement, and a straightforward statement that the agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. * * * We find no genuine issue as to any material fact or any error in the lower court’s determination that the waiver was valid and enforceable. Appellant is not entitled to relief based on [this] issue.* * * Order affirmed.

Legal Reasoning Questions

1. What indicated that the terms in the agreement at issue in this case were accepted?

2. What were the appellant’s arguments in support of her claim? Which of those contentions did the court imply was irrelevant? Why?

3. How did the court distinguish its conclusion in this case from its decision in Beck-Hummel?