McGinnis v. Gold Medal Gymnastics: Motion to Dismiss Denied

1 IN THE SUPE RIOR COURT O F THE STATE O F DEL AWARE Victoria McGi nnis, Indi vidually and as Next Friend of K.M., a Minor, Plaintiff, v. Gold Medal G ymnastics Academy LLC, Defendants.))))))))))) C.A. No. N25C- 12 - 324 FJJ ORDER Having considered Defen dant, Gold Medal Gymnastics Academ y, LLC (“Gold Metal”) M otion to Dismiss and the opposition o f the plaintiff it appear s to the Court t hat: 1. A complai nt has bee n filed o n behalf of a nine year old who alleges th at while participating in gymnastics activities a t Defendant’s facility she injured h erself while using the uneven bars. The complaint alleges t hat the Defendant’s conduc t was both negligen t and reckless which caused plaintiff’s injuries. Defendant has m oved for summary ju dgment on t he basis of a writ ten waiver. Plaintiff s oppose. 2. Two differe nt waivers ha ve bee n presented by the par ties. There is a question of fact as to which of the two waivers is applicable in this case. However, t here is no genuine issue o f material fact because each of the

2 waivers is insufficient under Delaware law to e xonerate the defendan t fr om liability in this case. 3. The two waiv ers provide: Waiver 1, which was executed by Minor Plaintiff’s mother, Victoria McGi nnis on July 9, 2024, pro vides: I am fully aware of and appreciate the risks, including the risk of catastro phic injur y, paralysis and even death, as well as other damages and losses associated with participatio n in gymnastics activities and events. I agree t o indemnify and hold Gold Med al Gymnastics Academy, LLC, it's employees and officers harmless from and against any and all liability for any injury that may be suffered by the aforementioned individual arising out of or i n any way connecte d with participation i n this activity. I further agree the sponsor o f any G MGA event, along with the employees, agents, officers, and d irectors o f the se organizations shall not b e lia ble for a n y loss es or d amage s occurring as a result of the aforementioned individua l participation in the event. Waiver 2, which was el ectronica lly accepted by Ms. McGinni s on July 25, 2 024, provides: Gold Medal Gymnastics Academy, its coaches and other staff members, will not accept responsibil ity for injuries sustained by any student during the course of gymnastics and/or tumbling instruction, open gym or workouts, or any activity, or in the c o urse of any e xhibition, co mpetitio n, or cl inic in whic h he or she may participate or while traveling to o r from the event. With the above in m ind, a nd be ing ful ly aware of the risks and possibility of injury invo lved, I consen t to have my c hild or children participate in the programs offered by Gold Medal Gymnastics Academy. I, my executors or other representatives, waiv e and rel ease all rights and claims for damages that I, or my child, may have against Gold Medal

3 Gymnastics Academy and or its represen tatives whether paid or volunteer. 4. Delaware law is cl ear th at for liability waivers to be valid the waiver m u st contain crystal clear and unequivocal language that the waiver covers the releasees negligent acts. 1 D elaware courts h ave found provisions to be “crystal clea r” when the language “expressly release s the d efendant s from any liability f or any injur y resulting fr om their o wn neglige nce.” 2 5. In Slowe v. Pi ke Creek Court Club, Inc., this Court found that the waiver was not “crystal clear” in releasing PC CC from the negligence claim because the lia bility waiver was “devo id of any la nguage indicating that the waiver would cover acts of negligence” committed by the defendant. 3 Slowe highlights the impor tance of inclu ding language in a w aiver that explici tly exonerates the party’s l iability from injuries caused by acts of th eir own negligence. 6. The court in Ketler v. PFPA, LLC d/b/a Planet Fitness further explains the importance o f expressly releasing an i njury resulting from the negligence of the defendant. 4 In Ketler, the plaintiffs’ claim was barred by the plaintiff’ s signed release of liability. 5 The waiver expressly released Planet Fitness 1 Slowe, 200 8 WL 5115035 at *2 (Del. Super. Dec. 4, 2008). 2 Mackenson, 2017 WL 2633492 at *2. 3 Slowe, 20 08 WL 5115035 at *3. 4 Ketler, 132 A.3 d at 747. 5 Id.

4 from any injur y that r esulted in neg ligence of Pl anet Fitness by stating: a. “…I un derstand and voluntarily accept this risk and a gree t hat P l anet Fitness... w ill not b e liable for any injury, including, without limitation, personal, bodily, or mental injury... resulting from the negligence of Planet Fitness or anyone on Planet Fitness' behalf whether relate d to exercise or n ot.” 6 7. The present case is similar to Slowe because the waiver does not speak to the defendant’s own n egligence. T he provision is devoid of language exonerating Gold Metal from i njuries caused by its own ne gligence. Gold Metal is not entitled to rely on either w aiver to avoid liability. Quite simply, either waiver presented does n ot release Gold Metal from liability because it does no t have the required language. Therefore, Gold Me tal’s Motion to Dismiss on the basis of the waiver is DENIED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERE D this 5 th day of Ma rch, 2026. /s/ Francis J. Jones, J r. Francis J. Jones, Jr., J udge cc: File & ServeXpr ess 6 Id. (emph asis added). 7 Even if the written waiver was valid it wou ld not apply to plaintiff’ s claims based on reckless conduct. Lyman v. Blue Diamon d LLC, 2016 WL 57 93725 (Del. Super. 2016).