Joe & Karerine's Bargain Holidays
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Personnel Injury
23 Answers
A person falls off a treadmill at the gym that someone had previously left running suffered fractured right shoulder etc who is to blame the gym owner which is the local council, the lady for leaving it running or the gym manager in failing in his duty of care? any personnel injury lawyer's have an idea?
Thank you
Thank you
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by coldstream-1971. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This sounds like a homework question.
Think of it this way.
There was a bus driving down the high street.
You jumped on the bus.
The bus was travelling at 30 mph.
You fell off the bus.
Who is to blame?
The driver, because you expected him to drive at 5 mph.
The bus company, because they own the bus.
Or the bus conductor, as he should look after his passengers.
No, the answer is you, for jumping on the bus whilst it was moving.
You didn't see it was moving? Get yourself off to Specsavers!.
Think of it this way.
There was a bus driving down the high street.
You jumped on the bus.
The bus was travelling at 30 mph.
You fell off the bus.
Who is to blame?
The driver, because you expected him to drive at 5 mph.
The bus company, because they own the bus.
Or the bus conductor, as he should look after his passengers.
No, the answer is you, for jumping on the bus whilst it was moving.
You didn't see it was moving? Get yourself off to Specsavers!.
No legal expert but wishing to comment.
I don't agree with a lot here, which probably means they are correct as far as the law is concerned.
Legally responsible is probably a different question to who is to blame. In fact all 3 mentioned caused the problem in various levels. No one should leave a machine running. There is blame. The gym is responsible for its users and should have someone on hand to note this sort of thing and have a word with the person who left it running as well as turning it off. There is blame. Folk should look where they are going but I think they have least blame since one should expect to be in a safe environment and not have to check an unused piece of equipment is running. It must be easy to be distracted, step up on something then find you get flung: so some blame for being unobservant but the least of the three in my opinion.
Were I to make a complete guess I'd have thought the gym was most liable. They have taken money and not ensured a safe environment. But I'm sure my common sense analysis has nothing to do with the legal position.
I don't agree with a lot here, which probably means they are correct as far as the law is concerned.
Legally responsible is probably a different question to who is to blame. In fact all 3 mentioned caused the problem in various levels. No one should leave a machine running. There is blame. The gym is responsible for its users and should have someone on hand to note this sort of thing and have a word with the person who left it running as well as turning it off. There is blame. Folk should look where they are going but I think they have least blame since one should expect to be in a safe environment and not have to check an unused piece of equipment is running. It must be easy to be distracted, step up on something then find you get flung: so some blame for being unobservant but the least of the three in my opinion.
Were I to make a complete guess I'd have thought the gym was most liable. They have taken money and not ensured a safe environment. But I'm sure my common sense analysis has nothing to do with the legal position.
Personal injury, not personnel.
The gym owner has a duty to ensure all the equipment and the environment it is in is well maintained and in good working order. The owner also has a duty to ensure all the staff are properly qualified, trained and aware of their duties and responsibilities.
The manager has a duty to ensure that the staff are doing their job, that the environment and equipment are being used safely and properly.
They gym user has an obligation to use the equipment in a safe and proper manner and to take reasonable care of themselves. He will need to show that he didn't contribute to the accident by his own negligence - contributory negligence. Assuming he's not blind he can be reasonably expected to at least look at a piece of equipment before using it. This is assuming he has been properly inducted and instructed about using the equipment.
The lady who left the machine running is not liable as there needs to be a special relationship between the her and the injured person. This relationship arises where there is a contract between the two people or an obligation such as a doctor/patient relationship.
It goes further than that, though. You need to look at the tort doctrine of vicarious liability. This means that the employer is ultimately responsible if the employee fails in his duty of care in the work place. If there is a breached duty of care by the manager, the injured party would need to sue the gym owner - the council. Of course the employer could take action against his employee, but that is a matter for employment law.
In this scenario the manager would need to aware of the potential danger either by seeing it for himself or being informed about it by a third party. It is not reasonable to expect him or the staff to be closely monitoring every piece of equipment every minute the gym is in use. He can only be negligent if he failed to act as soon as he reasonably could be expected to.
In summary, you need to look at the tort of negligence, the duty of care and special relationship, breach of that duty, vicarious liability, contributory negligence.
The gym owner has a duty to ensure all the equipment and the environment it is in is well maintained and in good working order. The owner also has a duty to ensure all the staff are properly qualified, trained and aware of their duties and responsibilities.
The manager has a duty to ensure that the staff are doing their job, that the environment and equipment are being used safely and properly.
They gym user has an obligation to use the equipment in a safe and proper manner and to take reasonable care of themselves. He will need to show that he didn't contribute to the accident by his own negligence - contributory negligence. Assuming he's not blind he can be reasonably expected to at least look at a piece of equipment before using it. This is assuming he has been properly inducted and instructed about using the equipment.
The lady who left the machine running is not liable as there needs to be a special relationship between the her and the injured person. This relationship arises where there is a contract between the two people or an obligation such as a doctor/patient relationship.
It goes further than that, though. You need to look at the tort doctrine of vicarious liability. This means that the employer is ultimately responsible if the employee fails in his duty of care in the work place. If there is a breached duty of care by the manager, the injured party would need to sue the gym owner - the council. Of course the employer could take action against his employee, but that is a matter for employment law.
In this scenario the manager would need to aware of the potential danger either by seeing it for himself or being informed about it by a third party. It is not reasonable to expect him or the staff to be closely monitoring every piece of equipment every minute the gym is in use. He can only be negligent if he failed to act as soon as he reasonably could be expected to.
In summary, you need to look at the tort of negligence, the duty of care and special relationship, breach of that duty, vicarious liability, contributory negligence.
