## Facts

- Khalif Jones was a member of an LA Fitness health club in Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania.
- On June 2, 2009, Jones was playing basketball on LA Fitness’s indoor court.
- During play near the baseline, Jones struck the back wall with his hands and suffered a serious elbow injury alleged to be permanent.
- Jones claimed the injury occurred when he contacted an unpadded portion of the back wall and alleged the court’s layout and safety measures were dangerous for normal basketball play.
- Jones sued LA Fitness in Pennsylvania state court, asserting negligence based on (1) failure to install sufficient wall padding and (2) failure to warn members about the dangerous condition.
- LA Fitness removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania based on diversity jurisdiction.
- Jones retained Steve Bernheim, a sports and recreation consultant, who inspected the facility and compared the court’s dimensions and features to national/industry standards.
- Bernheim concluded the court failed to meet applicable standards and identified multiple conditions that, in combination, created hazardous playing conditions: an undersized court, incomplete baseline/end-line markings across the full width, insufficient baseline-to-wall clearance, lack of certain line markings used on undersized courts, and padding that covered only part of the back wall.
- Bernheim also offered an opinion linking the court conditions to how the incident occurred.
- LA Fitness moved (1) to preclude Bernheim’s testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and (2) for summary judgment, arguing Jones lacked proof of a dangerous condition and factual causation—pointing in part to Jones’s prior contacts with padded areas without injury.

## Issues

1. Whether Bernheim’s testimony about basketball-court safety, design, and standards compliance was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, despite his lack of medical or biomechanical training.
2. Whether Jones produced sufficient evidence of breach and causation on his Pennsylvania negligence/premises-liability claims to survive summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court denied LA Fitness’s motion to preclude Bernheim under Rule 702, allowing him to testify about court layout, measurements, padding/clearances, and how those features compared to national or industry standards for safe basketball play.
- The court limited the scope of Bernheim’s testimony to matters within his qualifications as a sports and recreation consultant and not medical diagnosis or medical causation.
- The court denied LA Fitness’s motion for summary judgment, holding that a reasonable jury could find the court conditions were dangerous for the activity and were a substantial factor in causing Jones’s injury.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Evidence 702 permits opinion testimony by a qualified witness if the testimony will help the factfinder, is based on sufficient facts or data, results from reliable principles and methods, and reflects a reliable application of those methods to the case.
- An expert need not be a physician to testify about sports-facility safety, court dimensions, padding, and standards compliance; qualifications may rest on specialized training and experience related to sports and recreation safety.
- Where an expert’s work is grounded in measurements, inspection, and comparison to recognized standards, challenges to gaps or competing interpretations often go to weight for the jury rather than admissibility.
- Under Pennsylvania negligence/premises-liability principles, a plaintiff must produce evidence from which a jury can find duty, breach (unsafe condition or failure to make safe or warn), causation (including factual causation/substantial factor), and damages.
- Evidence that an incident had not previously caused injury, or that a plaintiff previously encountered a condition without injury, does not automatically defeat a claim when other evidence supports a finding that the condition posed an unreasonable risk during ordinary play.

## Conclusion

Jones v. LA Fitness International, LLC held that a sports and recreation consultant could testify under Rule 702 about whether a gym basketball court’s dimensions, markings, wall clearance, and partial padding departed from national/industry safety standards and created hazardous playing conditions, while reserving medical causation matters for qualified medical proof; with that evidence, the court found triable questions on dangerous condition and causation and therefore denied summary judgment.


Jones v. LA Fitness International, LLC, 2013 WL 3789807 (2013)