A 70-Year-Old Injured During Pilates... "Instructor Also Partially Responsible"

Pubilshed 27 Nov.2024 14:23(KST)

A member was injured after falling from equipment during a group lesson at a Pilates academy, and the operating company partially won a subrogation claim lawsuit filed against the instructor.

On the 8th, Judge Shin Jeong-min of the Civil Division 17 at the Seoul Central District Court ruled in the subrogation claim lawsuit (2023Gaso2455945) filed by Company A against Mr. B, ordering “Mr. B to pay approximately 4.5 million KRW to Company A,” resulting in a partial victory for the plaintiff.

Pixabay

Company A, which operates the Pilates academy, signed a contract for 100 group lessons with Mr. C (81) in mid-November 2018. In the same month, Mr. B, who signed an instructor consignment contract with Company A, conducted lessons for the group that included Mr. C. While Mr. C was in a so-called cat pose on the equipment listening to Mr. B’s explanation, the carriage slid backward, causing his back to bend and resulting in a fall from the equipment. Due to this, Mr. C sustained injuries including left shoulder dislocation and rotator cuff tear and filed a damage compensation lawsuit against Company A and Mr. B. In October of last year, the court ruled that “Company A and Mr. C jointly pay approximately 18 million KRW plus delayed damages,” and in November of the same year, Company A paid Mr. C approximately 22.5 million KRW and then filed a lawsuit against Mr. D demanding “payment of approximately 20 million KRW.”

Judge Shin explained, “Pilates is a strength exercise using equipment, which carries the risk of accidents related to equipment use, and group lessons are conducted by one instructor for up to six members, limiting the ability to focus on all members. Company A signed a contract with Mr. C, who was 75 years old at the time, but there is no evidence that sufficient consultation or review of his physical ability was conducted. Mr. B did express concerns to Company A’s representative before the accident about the risks of group lessons for members in their 70s, but only advised to teach according to the members’ condition and took no further action.”

He further stated, “Considering that Mr. B was demonstrating movements to four members and Mr. C started pushing the platform first but could not overcome the spring tension and fell from the equipment, it is reasonable to limit Mr. B’s liability to 20% of the damages paid by Company A.”

However, Judge Shin did not accept Mr. B’s claim that he should be exempt from liability under the instructor consignment contract because the accident was not caused by his intentional or gross negligence.

Park Su-yeon, Legal Times Reporter