Legal Opinion

Shields v. Sta-Fit, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided October 24, 1995No. 14551-4-IIIPublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Sweeney, A.C.J.

Generally exculpatory clauses are valid unless they violate a public policy interest of this state. As a condition of joining Sta-Fit Club East, Paul Shields was required to release Sta-Fit and its em ployees from any negligence or fault. He was injured when a Sta-Fit employee, a trainer, instructed him to remove his support belt while performing squats. He had paid an extra $10-per-hour fee to the trainer for advice and instruction. We are asked to decide whether public policy considerations should preclude enforcement of the hold harmless agreement. Applying the rationale…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Tunkl v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Scott v. Pacific West Mountain ResortWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Wagenblast v. Odessa School District No. 105-157-166JWashington Supreme Court · 1988
  4. McCutcheon v. United Homes Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1971
  5. Conradt v. Four Star Promotions, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1986

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Moore v. WallerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
  2. Seigneur v. National Fitness Institute, Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2000
  3. Larry Riley v. Iron Gate Self StorageCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2017
  4. Massengill v. S.M.A.R.T. Sports Medicine Clinic, P.C.Wyoming Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Steinmetz v. Call Realty, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2001

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API