Everyday across Australia thousands of people participate in exercise classes ranging from typical gym offerings of spin class and pump to more adventurous pursuits. In the recent decision of Cornwall v Jenkins as Trustee for the iSpin Family Trust [2020] ACTCA 2, the Australian Capital Territory’s (ACT) Court of Appeal gave consideration to the duty of care owed by an exercise instructor to his or her students.
Partner Anna Hendry examine the ups and downs of an exercise instructor’s duty of care and provide practical guidance for those operating in this industry.
Key points
- Exercise instructors ought to perform a risk assessment of the various activities undertaken in any exercise class; and
- While in some cases it is appropriate to allow students discretion regarding the use of safety equipment, where there is a real risk of grave injury, the exercise instruction ought to insist on the use of appropriate safety equipment.
Background
The injured student was a 23-year old woman who had been participating in aerial sling classes at the iSpin fitness studio approximately once per week for a year. The class involved learning and performing aerial exercises using a fabric sling suspended from the ceiling at about waist or chest height. On 11 February 2014, she was attempting a manoeuvre on a sling when her foot got caught and she fell to the floor, breaking both of her wrists. At the time she had only a thin yoga mat on the floor beneath her.
The student commenced proceedings against the defendant alleging it was negligent in its failure to direct her to use an adequate crash mat and ensure she used a spotter as directed.
Trial decision
At trial, evidence was led that the studio had thicker crash mats available in the room where classes were conducted, as well as in an adjacent storeroom. The defendant alleged that students could choose between the thicker crash mats and the thin yoga mats, but the use of the yoga mats was more common as it was easier to perform moves on them rather than a ‘squashier’ crash mat. The defendant also alleged that the instructor had directed students to use a spotter, which the plaintiff had failed to do. The plaintiff argued that the defendant should have insisted on the use of the thicker crash mats rather than simply using the choice of mat to the student’s discretion.
The trial judge dismissed the student’s claim on the basis that the evidence did not reveal a breach of duty of care. It was held that whilst there was a foreseeable and not insignificant risk of harm, the defendant took reasonable precautions by providing yoga mats and instructing students to use a spotter when attempting the manoeuvre. As to the requirement to use a thicker crash mat, Justice Mossop held that the insistence on the use of a crash mat was not a measure a reasonable person in the position of the defendant would have taken and that in any event there was a lack of evidence that the plaintiff would have fallen in an area protected by a crash mat.
Appeal decision
On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the primary judgement and ordered the student to pay the defendant’s costs of proceedings before the primary judge and the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal considered expert evidence presented in the primary judgement on human biomechanics, and found that the provided yoga mats were inadequate where the manoeuvre was being performed at a greater height and that the injury could have been reduced in severity (or not occurred at all) if the appellant had been required to use a crash mat for that manoeuvre. The defendant ought to have insisted on the use of the crash mats rather than allowing the student to choose the type of mat she used.
Despite this, the Court of Appeal also made a finding of contributory negligence on the basis the student failed to use a spotter as instructed, which materially contributed to her injury.
For further information or discussion, please contact a member of our Insurance team.