(File photo)
MANILA – The Supreme Court (SC) has cleared a local fitness center of liability over the death of a 59-year-old female client after a workout.
In its 20-page decision promulgated on April 3 and published on May 21, the high court's 1st Division reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA), which found Slimmers World International and its staff guilty of negligence.
The case was filed by Miguel Kim after his wife, Adelaida complained of headache and vomiting after her 12th workout session at Slimmers World on July 25, 2000.
The gym staff immediately brought her to the hospital but she died after three days. Miguel sued the fitness center for damages.
On Oct. 29, 2009, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Miguel's complaint for damages, finding that the “gross negligence” of Slimmers World, Albert Cuesta (fitness trainer), and Dinah Quinto (managing director) was the proximate cause of Adelaida's death.
On Oct. 8, 2012, the CA affirmed with modification the decision of the RTC as to the award of damages.
“After a judicious review of the case records, the Court finds that Slimmers World, et al. can neither be held answerable for contractual negligence nor for quasi-delict,” the SC said in its ruling.
“Quasi-delict” refers to a negligent act or omission that results in harm or damage to an individual or the property of another.
Citing the presence of public notices in the club premises, the court pointed out that it was incumbent upon “high-risk clients” to proceed to the blood pressure machine stations and have their blood pressure taken.
“In any case, Adelaida declared that she was not a high-risk client," the tribunal noted.
In clearing the fitness center, the court added that the deceased "may be deemed familiar with the risks involved, considering the number of sessions she had completed without any complaint.”
“Besides, if an activity turned out to be too challenging, or even granting that she was suffering from a headache prior to the workout, she could have easily discontinued or canceled the same. To be sure, (she) was by no means under any compulsion to participate in the activity, having freely consented to the same," the SC said. (PNA)
