Another Day, Another Lawsuit About Injuries Suffered At A Gym (Another Reason For Me Not To Go To The Gym)

by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

Weight lifters (pd)
I have written about the enforceability of waivers in health club membership agreements before, including just last week. Now the Appellate Decision has issued another decision on this same topic, Crossing-Lyons v. Town Sports International, Inc., which nicely illustrates the types of injuries that are covered by these agreements and those that are not.

First, a little background. The two seminal cases on this issue are Stelluti v. Casapenn and Walters v. YMCA , both of which I have written about before.

In Stelluti, plaintiff was injured when the handlebars of her stationary bike dislodged and caused her to fall during a spin class. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that these injuries were covered under the broad release in plaintiff's membership agreement. It reasoned that exercising entails vigorous physical exertion (depending, of course, on the person exercising – I am not sure my time on the stationary bike this morning was terribly vigorous), and that the member assumes some risks — faulty equipment, improper use of equipment, inadequate instruction, inexperience, poor physical condition of the user, or excessive exertion — as a result. While a health club must maintain its premises in a condition safe from known or discoverable defects, it need not ensure the safety of members who voluntarily assume some risk by engaging in strenuous physical activities that have a potential to result in injuries.  

Continue reading “Another Day, Another Lawsuit About Injuries Suffered At A Gym (Another Reason For Me Not To Go To The Gym)”

Four Residential Mortgage Lenders May Resume Uncontested Foreclosures: Will Long Processing Backlogs Return?

by:  Michael L. Rich

Mercer County Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson ordered that four of New Jersey's six largest mortgage servicers may resume uncontested residential foreclosures after apparently demonstrating they have taken adequate steps to remedy improper "robo-signing" and other questionable practices.  Specifically, the Court’s directive permits Bank of America, Citibank, JPMorgan Chase Bank and Wells Fargo to resume uncontested residential foreclosures which had been effectively halted since December 2010.  Retired Appellate Division Judge Richard Williams, serving as Special Master, reported that these four institutions had made a prima facie showing that they implemented new processes to redress the problems previously identified.  His Report led to the Court’s recent ruling.

These four mortgage servicers, together with several other big banks, account for a large percentage of New Jersey's residential foreclosures.  Thus, the approximate 7-month hiatus occasioned by the Court’s prior halting of uncontested foreclosures by these servicers afforded an opportunity for New Jersey’s Office of Foreclosure to make some significant strides in reducing the long backlogs that been occurring due to the unprecedented level of residential foreclosure filings – particularly as concerns speeding up the processing of larger commercial foreclosures.  However, with the temporary halting lifted, at least as to the four major banks, it is altogether likely that the backlog in processing final foreclosure judgment applications through the Office of Foreclosure is likely to return  and perhaps even worsen over the coming months.