## Facts

- Carlos A. Leon joined Family Fitness Center (#107), Inc. in June 1993 and signed a legal-length, single-sheet membership agreement printed on both sides.
- The front page had two columns; the left column contained about 90 lines of uniform, unheaded text, while the right column contained financial/Truth-in-Lending information with varied formatting.
- An exculpatory clause appeared at the bottom of the left column without headings or formatting that would draw attention to it.
- The clause stated the buyer assumed risks of “participation in a sport or physical exercise” and that the club would not be liable for any claims for death, personal injury, or property loss “resulting from or related to” the member’s use of the facilities or participation in any activity.
- While using the sauna, Leon lay or sat on a wooden bench that collapsed, causing head injuries.
- Leon sued for negligence. Family Fitness moved for summary judgment based on the release, and the trial court granted the motion, finding the clause conspicuous enough and written in simple language.
- Leon appealed, arguing the release was inconspicuous and ambiguous as to waiver of the club’s own negligence, and also attacked the release as procured by fraud or overreaching.

## Issues

1. Whether the membership agreement’s liability release was sufficiently conspicuous and unambiguous to release Family Fitness from liability for its own negligence for injuries caused by a collapsing sauna bench.
2. Whether the release was unenforceable due to fraud or overreaching in its procurement.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held the release was not sufficiently conspicuous and not sufficiently clear to exculpate Family Fitness from liability for its own negligence.
- The court did not invalidate the release on fraud or overreaching grounds as a matter of law; reversal rested on the release’s inadequate presentation and ambiguity.

## Legal Principles

- Contractual releases of future negligence in voluntary, nonessential recreational settings are permitted in California but are strictly construed against the drafter.
- To bar claims for the drafter’s own negligence, an exculpatory clause must be clear, explicit, and understandable, and must communicate that negligence is being released with high specificity.
- Conspicuousness depends on the document’s overall presentation (including placement and formatting), not only font size.
- Language focused on assuming risks of “sport” or “physical exercise” may not clearly extend to injuries arising from alleged negligent maintenance or premises-type hazards (e.g., failure of a fixed facility component) absent unmistakable wording.

## Conclusion

Because the release was buried in dense, unhighlighted text and framed in terms of assumed activity risks rather than clearly waiving claims for the facility’s negligent maintenance, it did not bar Leon’s negligence claim arising from the sauna bench collapse; summary judgment for Family Fitness was therefore reversed and the case remanded.


Leon v. Family Fitness Ctr. (#107), Inc., 61 Cal. App. 4th 1227, 71 Cal. Rptr. 2d 923 (Ct. App. 1998)