Ontiveros v. 24 Hour Fitness Corp.


Plaintiff member of 24 Hour Fitness Center alleged she was injured on a “Stairmaster” and sued 24 Hour Fitness for strict products liability. Plaintiff alleged that the “dominant” purpose for her membership was for the use of the exercise machines at the gym. The 24 Hour countered that the primary purpose of all of its memberships was the “provision of fitness services.”


Affirmed. The dominant purpose of the plaintiff’s membership with the fitness center was for the provision of fitness services, and for that reason the defendant was not a proper products liability defendant.