{"id":358401,"date":"2026-07-30T13:03:24","date_gmt":"2026-07-30T13:03:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peraltafinancing.com\/uncategorized\/gym-injury-premises-liability-480k-settlement\/"},"modified":"2026-07-30T13:03:24","modified_gmt":"2026-07-30T13:03:24","slug":"gym-injury-premises-liability-480k-settlement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=358401","title":{"rendered":"Gym Injury Premises Liability | $480K Settlement"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n

\n

A\u00a0premises liability claim in North Carolina<\/a>\u00a0can start with facts that look minor on paper and end up requiring surgery. This case did both. Our client went to Crunch Fitness to work out. Afterward, he sat down on a bench in the locker room. The bench, which had not been properly maintained, disintegrated beneath him. He fell, landing hard on his back and tailbone. What started as urgent care visits and chiropractic treatment eventually led to an orthopedic specialist, diagnostic imaging, and a rhizotomy procedure to address the nerve-related back pain that would not resolve.<\/p>\n

This case also carried two problems that could have killed the claim early. Liability was disputed, and the defense raised contributory negligence arguments. In North Carolina, contributory negligence can bar a plaintiff from recovery entirely, even if the injured party was only marginally at fault. On top of that, our client was a self-employed general contractor, which made proving lost wages a documentation challenge that the carrier was positioned to exploit. Senior Partner\u00a0Adam Seifer<\/a>\u00a0handled the case and overcame both obstacles to secure a $480,000 settlement.<\/p>\n

What Happened<\/h4>\n

Our client visited Crunch Fitness for a routine workout. After finishing, he entered the locker room and sat on a bench. The bench collapsed under him. He landed on his buttocks and back, sustaining injuries that initially presented as soft tissue pain.<\/p>\n

He went to urgent care and began chiropractic treatment. For a period, those were the only providers involved, and the case looked like a modest soft tissue claim. But the back pain persisted. He was referred to an orthopedic specialist, who identified nerve involvement and ultimately recommended a rhizotomy, a procedure that uses targeted heat to disrupt the nerves transmitting pain signals from the affected area of the spine.<\/p>\n

The Liability Problem<\/h4>\n

Premises liability cases require proof that the property owner or operator knew or should have known about a dangerous condition and failed to address it. Here, the condition was a locker room bench that had deteriorated to the point of structural failure. The defense disputed liability and raised contributory negligence.<\/p>\n

Premises Liability<\/strong>What it is:<\/em>\u00a0The legal obligation of a property owner or occupier to maintain safe conditions for people lawfully on the premises.<\/p>\n

Why it matters:<\/em>\u00a0A gym that fails to inspect, maintain, or replace deteriorating equipment in its facility can be held liable when that equipment injures a member.<\/p>\n

In this case:<\/em>\u00a0The bench had not been properly maintained. It did not simply break under unusual force or misuse. It disintegrated, which pointed to a prolonged maintenance failure.<\/p>\n

Contributory Negligence<\/strong>What it is:<\/em>\u00a0A defense under North Carolina law that can completely bar a plaintiff\u2019s recovery if the plaintiff\u2019s own negligence contributed to the injury, even minimally.<\/p>\n

Why it matters:<\/em>\u00a0North Carolina is one of a handful of states that follows this strict standard. Insurance carriers and defense attorneys use it aggressively, especially in cases where the facts allow them to argue that the plaintiff should have noticed the condition or avoided the hazard.<\/p>\n

In this case:<\/em>\u00a0We overcame the contributory negligence defense by establishing that the bench\u2019s condition was not something our client could have reasonably detected before sitting down.<\/p>\n

The Lost Wages Problem<\/h4>\n

Our client was a self-employed general contractor. His injuries prevented him from working, and the lost income was substantial. We claimed $170,000 in lost wages.<\/p>\n

Proving lost wages for a self-employed individual is harder than proving them for a salaried employee. There is no single pay stub or employer verification letter that establishes the number. Instead, the claim requires tax returns, bank records, contracts, project histories, and sometimes expert testimony to reconstruct what the claimant would have earned. Insurance carriers know this and will challenge the documentation at every stage.<\/p>\n

We built the lost wages claim with the records available, knowing the carrier would push back on the number. The challenge was real, but so were the losses.<\/p>\n

Our Approach<\/h4>\n

This case required building credibility on three fronts at once: liability, medical causation, and lost income.<\/p>\n