BS Lawsuit

DrZaius7 · Feb 21, 2012

Cybex International, the maker of fitness equipment, has agreed to pay $19.5 million to a Natalie Barnhard, a woman from New York State who was paralyzed when she was crushed by a leg extension machine.

Sounds straightforward enough. Except Barnhard is a physical therapist... who thought the machine was for shoulder stretches.

Of course no one wants to see someone get hurt but come on...stupidity is still stupidity.

rizzo · Feb 21, 2012

definitely sounds stupid to me. did the machine have the pic showing proper use?

letz · Feb 21, 2012

only in america

Crowler · Feb 21, 2012

I am not sure if she received any money yet.

The first jury awarded her 66 Million.

Then Cybex appealed and it was lowered to $19.2 Million.

Then in Nov 2011 Cybex Appealed not sure what is happening now.

Plaintiff was employed as a physical therapy assistant by third-party defendant, Amherst Orthopedic Physical Therapy, P.C. (Amherst Orthopedic) and, at the time of the accident, she was with her assigned patient in the gym area.

Plaintiff stood on the weight-stack side of the machine, put her hands on top of it and pulled on it in order to stretch her arms and shoulder. The machine, which weighed more than 600 pounds, was not secured to the floor and it toppled over onto her. Following a trial, the jury apportioned liability for the accident 75% to Cybex, 20% to Amherst Orthopedic and 5% to plaintiff. The jury awarded plaintiff damages for past and future medical expenses, lost earnings and benefits and pain and suffering, as well as damages for future “care for potential children.”

Gaintrain · Feb 21, 2012

sounds like the gym improperly secured the machine to the floor! just another freak accident that some one found a way to make money off of...

DrZaius7 · Feb 21, 2012

Crowler said:
I am not sure if she received any money yet.

The first jury awarded her 66 Million.

Then Cybex appealed and it was lowered to $19.2 Million.

Then in Nov 2011 Cybex Appealed not sure what is happening now.

Plaintiff was employed as a physical therapy assistant by third-party defendant, Amherst Orthopedic Physical Therapy, P.C. (Amherst Orthopedic) and, at the time of the accident, she was with her assigned patient in the gym area.

Plaintiff stood on the weight-stack side of the machine, put her hands on top of it and pulled on it in order to stretch her arms and shoulder. The machine, which weighed more than 600 pounds, was not secured to the floor and it toppled over onto her. Following a trial, the jury apportioned liability for the accident 75% to Cybex, 20% to Amherst Orthopedic and 5% to plaintiff. The jury awarded plaintiff damages for past and future medical expenses, lost earnings and benefits and pain and suffering, as well as damages for future “care for potential children.”

I think it was actually $44M she was initially rewarded. Cyber negotiated with her and she accepted the $19.5M because the full amount would have forced Cybex into bankruptcy. So the $19.5M is the amount Cybex will actually pay.

Akamai · Feb 21, 2012

Product liability pretty simple case.

Ak

raw33man · Feb 21, 2012

aMericaaaaaaaaaaa ! fuck yeaaaaaaaaa...

locutus61 · Feb 22, 2012

This just doesnt pass the smell test. How is Cybex liable for improper installation of a piece of equipment, unless they installed it themselves? Secondly, how does a woman pull over a piece of equipment weighing 600lbs bolted down or not? Now, if poor design was the problem, I.E. high center of gravity, unstable base etc., I can see this as problematic for Cybex.

MichiganHater · Feb 22, 2012

Guys my gym does not have that equipment. So if some how a power strength machine breaks my leg. You think I could get 100k?

The jury needs a iq test seriously.

bigboy05 · Feb 22, 2012

Couldn't believe this was for real so I googled it and found this link.

Cybex Lawsuit Award Cut, Appeal Likely - Defective Products / Products Liability - Injured

Turkishexpress · Feb 22, 2012

All too common. What's worse is the liability clauses members sign at gym go into the trash bin with decisions like this. They should have secured the machines down though.

bananas007 · Feb 22, 2012

u guys say bs i say its fair.

If ne of you got injured doing something at the gym cause the machine was not secured, and you got paralyzed i bet most of you would file a lawsuit and fairly enough. if someone makes a mistake they have to pay.

bananas007 · Feb 22, 2012

although dont understand y cybex was sued and not the gym

DrZaius7 · Feb 22, 2012

grenada said:
although dont understand y cybex was sued and not the gym

EXACTLY!

Honestly though I haven't noticed any of the machines in my gym being secured to the floor.

BOOMSHAKER · Feb 22, 2012

I think Cybex just wanted to make this case go away and barely challenged the validity of this case. They have too much to loose in future earnings. It is a 50/50 fault game here. The gym should have secured the machine to the floor. However, very rarely do they do this because they are always moving around or swapping out old machines for new ones. And if all the machines are bolted down then they are taring up a lot of concrete all the time.

But also the machine does have a design flaw. All of the balance feet are under the person who are working out. (part that gets bolted down) There are no anti balance feet on the opposite side where the weights are stacked to keep it from tipping over that way in case of an emergency. So yes, the balance can easily be thrown off if someone were to pull on the side where the weights are. Stupid, but true.

cat1wannabe · Feb 22, 2012

Sadly, many gyms don't have equipment bolted properly, or at all, like this case, to the floor securely.

You hang on a 600lb rack, you "assume" it is bolted and secured properly.

Gym f*&ked up on that one.

I can't think how many times I've done a similar thing in/around the gym and if something wasn't secured properly, could have been damage done.

Akamai · Feb 22, 2012

Poor design with 100s of people on or around it everyday, if a 600lb machine can be pulled over on someone you have to assume it will.

How many of us stretch on a machine just like that everyday at the gym. I know I do.

Ak

buck1973 · Feb 22, 2012

BOOMSHAKER said:
I think Cybex just wanted to make this case go away and barely challenged the validity of this case. They have too much to loose in future earnings. It is a 50/50 fault game here. The gym should have secured the machine to the floor. However, very rarely do they do this because they are always moving around or swapping out old machines for new ones. And if all the machines are bolted down then they are taring up a lot of concrete all the time.

But also the machine does have a design flaw. All of the balance feet are under the person who are working out. (part that gets bolted down) There are no anti balance feet on the opposite side where the weights are stacked to keep it from tipping over that way in case of an emergency. So yes, the balance can easily be thrown off if someone were to pull on the side where the weights are. Stupid, but true.

I have these machines in my gym. so I went to it today to get a closer look keep in mind i am at least twice her size. she is 5' 1" 110 lbs.I could not tip it over from the weight stack side but could slide it so as some one said there is more to the story. Freak accidents do happen IMO 75% her fault 15% Amherst 10% Cybex seems more in line. USE EQUIP. FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE.