Gross negligence; Xu v. Gay; Tarlea v. Crabtree; Willful & wanton misconduct; Burnett v. City of Adrian

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition for defendants-health club and personal trainer in plaintiff’s action alleging gross negligence and willful and wanton misconduct in the provision of personal training services. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that it should reverse the trial court’s grant of summary disposition on these two claims because a reasonable juror could conclude that defendants’ conduct constituted gross negligence and/or willful and wanton misconduct. “Here, reasonable minds could not differ regarding whether defendants’ conduct rose to the level of gross negligence.” The record showed that the personal trainer “kept plaintiff’s limitations in mind and never forced plaintiff to perform any unsafe or dangerous exercises that would amount to conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether injury resulted.” Further, he “was invested in improving plaintiff’s health and fitness, including the condition of his back both in and out of the gym. Plaintiff also failed to demonstrate that [the trainer] showed an intent to harm him or exhibited an indifference to whether harm would result during the course of their personal training relationship.” Moreover, plaintiff offered “no evidence that any personal training responsibilities that [the trainer] engaged in were performed so deficiently as to equate with a lack of concern for plaintiff’s safety.” Finally, plaintiff provided “no legal support for his assertions that: (1) defendants were required to keep records of their physical assessment of plaintiff for a specified period of time and failure to do so was evidence of gross negligence, and (2) defendants’ alleged failure to administer a health assessment was a deviation from the American College of Sports Medicine [] guidelines and could therefore be used to impose tort liability on defendants.” In sum, the court held that the evidence did “not raise a factual question on whether defendants disregarded plaintiff’s safety, showed an intent to harm plaintiff, or showed an indifference as to whether harm would result from the personal training activities.” Affirmed.