Karaoglu v Fitness First [2022] NSWCA 229
This matter was heard in the NSW Court of Appeal on 29 August 2023 (before Stern JA, Mitchelmore JA, and Simpson AJA). This case involved an unfortunate incident at a Fitness First gym in Auburn, New South Wales. Deniz Karaoglu was an experienced gym-goer. He was using a Technogym 45-degree incline leg press machine loaded with 240 kilograms prior to the incident concerned. After completing a set, he attempted to get off the machine. As he did the footplate fell, hitting him on the head and rendering him unconscious.
Mr Karaoglu commenced civil proceedings against Fitness First in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, alleging that the gym had breached its duty of care to him (as a member/invitee of the gym) and sought damages in the sum of $2.7 million for the injuries he alleged he had sustained, including a conversion disorder. It was alleged that the gym had failed to properly maintain the equipment and/or failed to properly instruct him on the appropriate use.
Decision at First Instance
The primary judge dismissed the claim. He considered that Mr Karaoglu had not proven either that the machine had not been properly maintained or that he had not been given proper instruction in the use of the equipment. The judge found that it was just as likely that the cause of the incident was Mr Karaoglu’s inattention in the use of the equipment; or that there had been a failure to instruct him on the safe use of the leg press as he was not convinced that Mr Karaoglu would have heeded any such instruction had it been given.
The primary judge also considered that the weight bar falling in such a manner if not properly ‘locked in’ constituted an ‘obvious risk’ which relieved Fitness First of the obligation to warn of the risk.
With respect to the injuries alleged to have been suffered, the primary judge found there was not sufficient evidence to prove that Mr Karaoglu suffered from a conversion disorder. Even if it was proven that Mr Karaoglu suffered from such a disorder, the primary judge did not consider that there was any evidence to indicate it was caused by the incident. He considered the only injury suffered was a temporary physical injury.
The Appeal
Mr Karaoglu appealed the primary judge’s decision.
The key issues in the appeal included:
- Existence of a Spring: Mr Karaoglu claimed that a defective spring on the leg press machine was a potential cause of the incident. Mr Karaoglu alleged that the primary judge had failed to understand and evaluate the facts available, claiming that the weight bar on the leg press had been in the ‘locked in’ position, but had not been properly locked in due to a defective spring.
- Failure to Warn: Mr Karaoglu argued that the primary judge failed to properly address the issue as to whether Fitness First breached its duty to instruct him in the safe operation of the leg press or warn as to the risk of injury.
Contingent Findings as to Injury: Mr Karaoglu challenged the primary judge’s findings regarding the extent and causation of his injury. The Court, consisting of Stern JA, Mitchelmore JA, and Simpson AJA, unanimously dismissed the appeal. Their findings were as follows:
- Existence of a Spring: The Court rejected Mr Karaoglu’s claim that the leg press should have had a spring or had a defective spring which caused the incident because there was no evidence to support this. The judges considered the evidence of the experts who had given evidence that there was no such spring fitted to the particular model of the leg press machine, and that there had been no spring fitted to the machine in question.
- Failure to Warn: The primary judge’s findings regarding the duty to warn were upheld. The Court considered that the judge had evaluated this issue appropriately and that Mr Karaoglu’s awareness of the risks associated with improper machine use and his reluctance to seek instructions or assistance meant that Fitness First was not obligated to warn him. Even if such a duty had been owed and Fitness First had provided a warning, the Court did not consider that Mr Karaoglu would have acted in a different manner. He had used a leg press machine previously 40-50 times, so was well acquainted with the machine.
- Conversion Disorder: The primary judge’s decision not to accept that Mr Karaoglu suffered from a conversion disorder caused by the accident was also upheld. The primary judge had found inconsistencies and a lack of corroboration in Mr Karaoglu’s evidence of the experts. The Court agreed with the primary judge’s conclusion and noted the primary judge had not been convinced that Mr Karaoglu wasn’t feigning the injury – noting that there was no reliable account of how the incident occurred as Mr Karaoglu would often claim that he did not have a good memory when answering questions, particularly in response to uncomfortable questions. Therefore, this ground of appeal was rejected as well.
It is important to note that the primary judge’s view of Mr Karaoglu’s credibility and reliability as a witness played a significant role in the outcome of the case. However, there was no challenge to the primary judge’s findings with regard to Mr Karaoglu’s credibility.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal affirmed the primary judge’s decision, concluding that there was no basis to reverse the findings and rulings made in the initial trial. Mr Karaoglu’s claim against Fitness First was ultimately dismissed, and he was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
It is important to understand that this matter was ultimately unsuccessful due to the evidence of negligence and injury, further compounded by the primary judge’s perception of the plaintiff’s reliability and credibility as poor. If you have suffered an injury in a public place and/or a private business, we encourage you to reach out to us for an obligation-free appointment to discuss whether we can help.
Phone us on (02) 4050 0330 or enquire online.
