Karaoglu v Fitness First Australia Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCA 229
In this recent NSW Court of Appeal decision, the Plaintiff had sued his gym after sustaining injury whilst using exercise equipment. His claim had been unsuccessful in the Supreme Court of NSW.
The Plaintiff was seeking $2.7 million in compensation, plus legal costs.
Facts
On 25 June 2015, Mr Karaoglu was training at Fitness First in Auburn, using a Technogym 45-degree incline leg press, loaded with 240kg weights. After completing an initial set of ten leg repetitions, the Plaintiff stood up, at which time the footplate of the leg press dropped and collided with his head, rendering him unconscious.
The Plaintiff alleged that he suffered serious injuries, including a conversion disorder, meaning that he experiencing ongoing sensory issues, such as intermittent paralysis, numbness, blindness, deafness and seizures, without an identifiable neurological cause.
Mr Karaoglu argued that the gym was negligent because it had not installed or maintained any safety features on the leg press, did not instruct users on how to operate the machine, and did not warn of the risks.
In its defence, Fitness First Australia argued that the Plaintiff did not operate the machine properly, as he did not “lock” the weights before he attempted to stand, and that it was under no duty to instruct or warn the Plaintiff, as the machine had a diagram and instructions demonstrating its use, and because the Plaintiff had used the machine before.
The manufacturer of the equipment, Italian company Technogym, was not a party to the proceedings.
First Decision
After a nine day hearing in the Supreme Court, the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed. This was on the basis that the cause of Mr Karaoglu’s alleged injuries was his own inattention, which ultimately led to the footplate colliding with his head. Justice Campbell was also critical of the Plaintiff’s reliability, both in relation to how the incident occurred and his injuries.
Justice Campbell also found that the Defendant did not have a duty to warn the Plaintiff in relation to this equipment, as the Plaintiff was aware, or ought to have been aware, that the weight bars may have been unstable if the supports were not put back into their proper locked position before he attempted to exit the equipment.
Appeal
The Plaintiff appealed the decision of Justice Campbell, however, the appeal was dismissed, due to the following:
- 1.There was no evidence that on the day in question the equipment was defective.
- 2.A warning would not have prevented the incident from occurring, nor have caused the Plaintiff to act differently, as he had used the machine before, and was thus aware of its workings. As such, the Defendant was under no duty to instruct or warn the Plaintiff.
- 3.The was insufficient evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was suffering from any ongoing issues or injuries, as a result of this incident.
Key Takeaways
This case is a key reminder to both plaintiffs and defendants on the importance of reliable evidence, and that a duty to warn will not necessarily extend to a plaintiff with prior knowledge of the relevant facts.
The contents of this publication are for reference purposes only. This publication does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Specific legal advice should always be sought separately before taking any action based on this publication.
