Day on Torts
A liability waiver signed by the plaintiff when joining a fitness center applied to her claim that she was injured when a shower seat in the center came off the wall.
In Torres v. YMCA Foundation of Middle Tennessee, No. M2024-00720-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. April 30, 2026), the plaintiff filed a personal injury action against the defendant YMCA when she was injured while using a shower seat that fell off the wall. The YMCA moved for summary judgment based on a liability waiver signed by the plaintiff as part of her YMCA membership application. The trial court granted summary judgment, ruling that the liability waiver applied, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
On appeal, the plaintiff first argued that the waiver did not apply because it waived injury resulting from use of the “facilities, equipment, or machinery,” and that facilities would not include the showers. The Court disagreed. The Court found that the language in this waiver was unambiguous, and that it “encompass[ed] any buildings or rooms where [the plaintiff] might participate in the activities and programs of the YMCA or that she might use as a member.” The Court wrote that this “would certainly include the showers.”
Next, the plaintiff argued that the waiver should not apply because the “membership application did not specifically point out the waiver language where it should have…” When determining whether a waiver is enforceable, a court should consider the “totality of the circumstances,” as well as three non-exclusive factors: “(1) the relative bargaining power of the parties; (2) the clarity of the exculpatory language…; and (3) public policy and public interest implications.” (internal citation and quotations omitted). Here, all three factors leaned in favor of enforcing the waiver.
When considering the relative bargaining power of the parties, the Court noted that this was a take-it-or-leave-it agreement, but also that the service being offered by the YMCA was not essential. The plaintiff could have not joined the fitness center or looked at other fitness centers.
Regarding the clarity of the exculpatory language, the Court explained that the waiver should be “clear, unambiguous, and unmistakable about what the party who signs the agreement is giving up[.]” (internal citation omitted). In this agreement, there was a bold, all-caps heading that stated “YMCA POLICY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, LIABILITY WAIVER AND PHOTO RELEASE.” The paragraphs that included the liability were short, and the waiver appeared in both the second and third paragraphs. The agreement was only two pages long. Immediately before the signature line, the agreement stated in bold: “By signing below I acknowledge that I understand and agree to the YMCA policies, liability waiver, and photo release stated above.” In light of these facts, the Court concluded that the waiver was sufficiently clear.
The third factor, public policy, also weighed in favor of enforcing the waiver. When analyzing this factor, courts should consider “whether the services involved are of great importance to the public or a practical necessity for some members of the public.” (internal citation omitted). The services of the fitness center were “purely voluntary and not a practical necessity,” and therefore public policy concerns were not implicated.
After summarily rejected the plaintiff’s assertion that the Court should reconsider existing law surrounding liability waivers, summary judgment for the defendant was affirmed based on the waiver found in the membership application.
This opinion was released 15 months after oral arguments.