## Facts

- Charles Alack became a member of a health club operated by Vic Tanny International of Missouri, Inc. under a standard-form membership contract.
- The contract contained a general exculpatory clause releasing the club from liability for personal injury, but it did not expressly mention the club’s own negligence, fault, or equivalent terms.
- The club offered a cardiovascular program (“Super Circuit”) using multiple weight machines in sequence.
- While Alack used an upright row machine, the handle disconnected from the weight cable and struck his mouth and jaw, causing loose and broken teeth and other injuries.
- The failure was attributed to the handle being connected without a required clevis pin between the cable and hook assembly.
- Alack received extensive dental treatment, underwent surgeries, faced continuing jaw problems, and incurred or became obligated for about $17,000 in medical expenses.
- Alack sued for negligence based on unsafe equipment and improper maintenance/assembly.
- The trial court ruled the exculpatory clause did not bar the negligence claim, allowed the contract into evidence, and the jury awarded Alack $17,000.
- Vic Tanny appealed on the release; Alack cross-appealed seeking a new trial on damages and a punitive-damages instruction.

## Issues

1. Whether the membership contract’s exculpatory clause clearly and unequivocally released the health club from liability for its own future negligence causing personal injury.
2. Whether a general release that does not use “negligence,” “fault,” or equivalent language is sufficiently definite to waive claims for the drafter’s negligence.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying (a) a new trial on damages as inadequate and (b) a jury instruction on punitive damages.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the judgment for Alack.
- The exculpatory clause was ambiguous and did not bar Alack’s negligence claim because it did not clearly and unmistakably waive claims for the club’s own future negligence.
- Missouri requires an exculpatory clause to use “negligence,” “fault,” or equivalent language to effect a clear waiver of negligence claims against the drafter.
- The court upheld denial of a new trial on damages and refusal to submit punitive damages.

## Legal Principles

- Exculpatory clauses are disfavored and are strictly construed against the party seeking to avoid liability.
- A contractual release of a party’s own future negligence is enforceable only if the waiver is clear, unequivocal, unmistakable, and conspicuous.
- A general release of “any and all claims” for personal injury, without explicit reference to the drafter’s negligence (or a close equivalent), is ambiguous and will not be construed to waive negligence claims.
- In consumer, standard-form agreements, courts require language that places an ordinary person on clear notice that negligence claims are being waived.
- A trial court may deny a new trial on damages where the verdict is supported by the evidence and reflects the jury’s assessment of disputed non-economic and future damages.
- Punitive damages require proof beyond ordinary negligence, such as willful, wanton, or conscious disregard for safety; negligent maintenance/assembly alone is insufficient.

## Conclusion

Missouri refused to enforce a health-club release to bar a member’s negligence claim because the clause did not expressly waive injuries caused by the club’s own negligence, and the court affirmed the compensatory award while rejecting claims for increased damages and punitive damages absent supporting proof.


Alack v. Vic Tanny Int’l of Mo., Inc., 923 S.W.2d 330 (Mo. 1996)