Idaho gym trainer can't use 'apparent agency' sword to avoid negligence liability

Imagine you are attending a circuit training class at your local gym and are injured by what you view as the negligence of the personal trainer leading the class. When you joined the gym, as part of your membership agreement, you agreed to a hold-harmless clause for the gym and its agents. Can you sue anyone for your injury? Alternatively, what about the personal trainer—can she rely on the gym's hold-harmless clause in the membership agreement? The Idaho Supreme Court recently weighed in.

Facts and findings

Circuit training is a fast-paced class in which participants do one exercise for 30 seconds to five minutes and then move on to another routine. In the recent Idaho case, a patron sued both the gym and the personal trainer after she was injured during a class.

Relying on the hold-harmless release in the membership agreement, the gym was able to obtain summary judgment (dismissal of the claim against it without a trial).

With regard to the personal trainer, the gym argued she was an "independent contractor." Separately, the trainer claimed she was an "agent" of the gym. Specifically, by advancing the agency argument, she was trying to avail herself of the gym's hold-harmless release and escape the injured patron's negligence allegations.

The supreme court decided, however, an "apparent agent" of a business is precluded from using the status in a defensive manner. In other words, the trainer wasn't allowed to use her status as a "sword" to defeat the claim. Nelson v. Kaufman, No. 46027, 2020 WL 717968 (Idaho, Feb. 13, 2020).

Digging deeper into decision