IN THE SUPREM E COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAW ARE

DESHAUN KETLER an d § BRITTANY KETLER, h i s wi fe, § No . 3 1 9 , 2 0 1 5 §

Pl ai n t i ff-Bel o w, § Ap p el l an t

, § Co u rt Bel o w: Su p eri o r Co u rt § o f t h e St at e o f Del aware

v

. § § PFPA, LLC, a Del aware §

Co rp o rat i o n , d / b / a § C.A. No . N1 4 C-1 2 -2 35

Pl an et Fi t n es s , § §
Defen d an t -Bel o w, § Ap p el l ee. §

Su b m i t t ed : Decem

b er 2 , 2 0 1 5
Deci d ed : J an u ary 1 5 , 2 0 1 6

Befo re STRI NE , Ch ief J us t ice; VALI HURA

, an d VAUGHN, J u s t ices

.

Up o n ap peal fro m

t h e Su p eri o r Co u rt

. A FFI RMED.

Ed wa r d T

. C i c o n t e, Es q ui re, Ad am F. W as s erm an , Es q u i re, Ci co nt e, Scerb a &
Kerri ck , LLC, W i l m i n g to n, Del aware, fo r Ap p el l an t

.

Gary H. Kap l an , Es q ui re, J es s i ca L. Ty l er, Es q u i re, M ars h al l D en n eh ey W arn e r Co l em an & Go g g i n, W i l m i n g t o n , Del aware, fo r Ap p el l ee.

VAUGHN , J u s ti ce:Pl ai n t i ffs -Bel o w/ Ap p el l an t s DeSh au n Ket l er an d Bri tt an y Ket l er ap peal fro m

a Su p eri o r Co u rt o rd er g ran t in g Defen d an t -Bel o w/ A p p el l ee PFPA, LLC’ s (“ Pl an et

Fi t n es s ”) m o t i o n fo r ju d g m en t o n t h e p l ead i n g s

. DeSh au n Ket l er was i n ju red wh i l e

u s i n g e x e rci s e eq u i p m en t i n a Pl an et Fi t n es s faci l it y

. Th e Ket lers cl ai m t h at t h e

i n ju ri es were cau s ed by n eg li gen ce o n t h e p art o f Pl an et Fi t n es s

. Th e Su peri o r Co u rt

fo u n d th at th e Ket l ers cl ai m was b arred by a s ig ned rel eas e o f l i ab i l i t y

. It d et erm i n ed

t h a t a rel eas e wh i ch al l o ws a p art y t o av o id l i ab i li t y fo r i t s own n eg l i g e n c e i s

p erm i s s i b l e un der Del aware Law i f t h e rel eas e i s u n am b i g u o us , n o t un co ns ci o n ab l e,

an d n o t ag ai n s t p u bl i c po l i cy

. It fu rt h er d et erm i n ed th at t h e rel eas e s at i s fi ed al l t h ree

cri t eri a. On ap p eal

, t h e Ket l ers co n t en d t h a t t h e Su p eri or Co u rt erred b ecau s e t h e

rel eas e i s am

b i g uo u s , un co n sci o n ab l e, an d ag ai n s t p u b l i c p o l i cy

. W e ap p ro v e t h e

Su p eri o r Co urt ’ s d et erm i n at i o n s an d affi rm

.

In 2 0 1 0

, DeSh au n jo in ed Pl an et Fi t n es s at a co s t o f $ 1 0 p er m o n th

. 1 DeSh au n

s i gn ed a m em

b ers h ip ag reem en t , wh i ch co n tai n ed t he fo l l o wi n g :

I u nd ers t an d an d ex p res s l y ag ree t h at m y u s e of t h i s Pl an et
Fi t n es s faci li t y

. . . i n v o l v es t h e ri s k of i n ju ry t o m e o r m

y g u es t
wh et her ca u s e d b y m e o r n o t

. I u nd ers t an d t hat t h es e ri s k s can

ran g e fro m m i n or in

j u ri es t o m ajo r in

ju ri es i n cl u d i n g d e a t h

. In

co n s i d erat i o n o f m

y p art i ci p at i o n i n t h e act i v i t i es an d u s e o f t he

faci l it i es o ffered b y Pl an et Fi t n es s, I u n d ers t an d an d v o l u n tari l y

1 Devana F itness, L L C was the franchisee of the Planet F itness location on the date the Membership Ag reement w a s e x ecuted. On J uly 31, 2012, prior to K etler’s incident, Devana F itness, L L C assig ned its rig hts and interests in, and under, all Membership Ag r eements to PF PA, L L C.

1accep t t h is ri sk an d ag ree t h at Pl an et Fi t n es s

. . . wi ll no t b e l i ab l e

fo r an y in ju ry , i n cl u d i n g , wi t h o u t l i m i t at i o n , p ers o n al

, b o di l y , o r

m en t al i n j u ry

. . . res u l t i n g fro m t h e n eg l ig en ce of Pl an et Fi t n es s

o r an y o n e o n Pl an et Fi t n es s ’ b eh al f wh et h er rel at ed t o ex erci s e o r

n ot

. Acco rd i n gl y , I d o h er e b y fo rev er rel eas e an d d i sch arg e Pl an et F i t n es s fro m an y an d al l cl ai m s, d em an d s, i n ju ri es , d am ag es , act i o n s o r cau ses o f act i o n

. I fu rt h er u n d ers t an d a n d

ack n o wl ed ge t h at Pl an et Fi t n es s d o es n o t m an u fact u re fi t n es s o r

o th e r eq u i p m en t i n i t s faci l i t ies

, b ut p u rch as es an d / o r l eas es

eq u i p m en t

, an d th erefo re Pl an et Fi t n es s m ay n o t b e h el d l i ab l e fo r d efect i v e p ro d uct s

. 2

In Ap ri l 2 0 1 3

, DeSh au n w as i n ju red wh en a cab l e b ro ke o n a s eat ed ro wi ng m ach i n e

t h at h e was u s i n g at Pl an et Fi t n es s

.

Th i s Co urt has p rev i o u s l y reco gn i zed t hat a rel eas e o f p ro s p ect i ve n eg l i g en ce

m ay b e val i d

. 3 Su ch a rel eas e m u s t b e “ ‘c l e a r a n d u n eq u i v o cal ’ to i n s u l at e a p art y

fro m l i ab i l i t y

. . . .” 4 Th e rel eas e p ro vi s i o n i n v o l v ed h ere ex pres s l y rel eas es Pl an et

Fi t n es s fro m an y l i ab i l i t y fo r a n y i n j u ry res u lt i n g fro m t h e n eg li g en ce o f Pl an et

Fi t n es s , wh et h er rel at ed t o ex erci s e o r n o t

. It ex pres s ly rel eas es Pl an et Fi t n es s fro m

an y an d al l cl ai m s o r cau s es o f act i o n

. Th e p ro v i s i o n’ s l an gu ag e i s cl ear an d

u n eq ui v o cal

.

2 Appellant’s Op. B r. App. at A8.

3 Riverbend Cmty., LLC v. Green Stone Eng’g, LLC

, 55A.3d 330, 336 (Del. 2012).

4 Id. (quoting State v. Interstate Amiesite Corp. , 297 A.2d 41, 44 (Del. 1972)).

2It m

u s t al s o n ot b e u n co n s ci o n ab l e. Un co n sci o n ab i l it y i s a co n cep t t h at i s u s ed

s p ari ng l y

. 5 Trad i ti o n al l y, a n un co n s ci o n ab l e co n t ract i s o ne wh i ch “ n o m an i n h i s

s en s es an d n o t u n der d el u s i o n w o u l d m ak e o n th e o ne h an d

, an d as n o h o n es t o r fai r

m an wo u l d accep t

, o n t h e ot her.” 6 “ Bu t m ere d is p ari t y b et w een t h e b arg ai n i n g

p o wers o f p art i es t o a co n t r a ct wi l l n ot su p po rt a fi n d i n g o f u nco n s ci o n ab i l i t y

. ” 7

“ [T] h ere m

u s t be an ab s en ce o f m ean i n g fu l ch o ice an d co n t ract t erm s u n reas o n ab l y

fav o rab l e t o o n e o f t he p art i es .” 8 Th ere is n o d ep ri v at i o n o f m e an i n gfu l ch o i ce i f a

p art y can wal k away fro m t h e co n t ract

. 9 Here, DeSh au n was free t o accep t t h e Pl an et

Fi t n es s m em

b ers h i p o r n o t

. T h e Su p eri o r Co u rt di d n o t err i n co n cl u d i n g t h at t h e

rel eas e i s n o t u n co n s ci o nab l e.

Fi n al l y , t h e rel eas e m

u s t n o t v i o l at e pu b li c p o l icy

. Th e p u b l i c p o l i cy o f t h i s

s t at e i s t y p i cal l y d et erm i n ed b y t h e De la w a r e G e n eral As s em

b ly

. No Del aware s t at u t e

h as b een i d en t i fi ed wh ich b ears o n th e val i d i t y o f a rel eas e o f p ro sp ect i ve n eg l i g en ce.

5 See Progressive Int’l Corp. v. E.I. D uPont de Nemours & Co.

, 2002 W L 1558382, a t *11 (Del. Ch.

J uly 9, 2002) (discussing the reluctance of courts to apply the doctrine).

6 Reserves Mgmt., LLC v. Am. Acquisition Prop., LLC

, 2014 W L 823407, at *9 (Del. F eb. 28, 2014) (internal quotations omitted).

7 Id.

8 Tulowitzki v. Atl. Richfield Co. , 396 A.2d 956, 960 (Del. 1978).

9 See Graham v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

, 5 65 A.2d 908, 913 (Del. 1989) (finding the doctrine

of unconscionability inapplicable, in part, because the plaintiffs had the opportunit y t o cancel the

ins u r a n c e p o l i c y ) ; Progressive

, 2002 W L 1558382, at *11 (rejecting the plaintiff’s unconscionability

arg ument, in part, because nothing had prevented the plaintiff from walking away from a contract with alleg edly unfavorable terms).

3Th e Ket l ers arg u e t h at t h e rel eas e v i o l at es t h e p u b l i c p o l i cy em b o d i ed i n t h e p ri n ci p l e

t h at a p ro p ert y own er h as a d u t y t o m ak e h i s p r o pert y s afe fo r b u s i n es s i n v i t ees

.

Ho wev er, a g e n e r al rel eas e b y i t s n at u re rel eas es a p art y fro m a p o ten t ial l i ab i l i t y

o t h e r w i s e i m

p o s ed b y l aw. Th e p u b l ic p o l i cy i nv o lv ed m u st b e on e wh i ch

d i s ap p ro v es o f t h e rel eas e.

Fo r t h e fo reg o in g reas o n s , t h e ju d gm en t o f t h e Su p eri o r Co u rt i s AFFI RMED.

4