Slimmers World cleared in client’s death
‘The advertisement was a ‘mere proposal of the contract between Slimmers World et al. and Adelaida,’ as public advertisements are construed as invitations to make offers or as proposals’
Daily Tribune‘The advertisement was a ‘mere proposal of the contract between Slimmers World et al. and Adelaida,’ as public advertisements are construed as invitations to make offers or as proposals’
The Supreme Court (SC) cleared fitness center Slimmers World International of liability for damages for the death of a client following a personal training session.
In its ruling dated 3 April 2024 and uploaded 21 April, penned by Justice Jose Midas Marquez, the SC said Slimmers World cannot be held liable for contractual negligence or negligence resulting in harm.
The SC said Slimmers World was not negligent and cannot be ordered to pay damages for not taking its client’s blood pressure or not having a doctor present at all times, as this was not stated in its contract with the client.
The SC First Division reversed the Court of Appeals ruling that had ordered Slimmers World, fitness trainer Albert Cuesta, and managing director Dinah Quinto to pay P400,000 in actual, moral, and exemplary damages to Miguel Kim for the death of his wife Adelaida.
Record showed Adelaida died days after complaining of headache, nausea and discomfort following her 12th personal training session in Slimmers World.
When she was checked by the staff her blood pressure was high, and she took medication for hypertension and the staff later took her to the hospital after she vomited while changing her clothes.
A CT scan later revealed a mass in her brain, and she died days later due to cerebral hemorrhage and severe hypertension.
The husband sued the fitness center for damages, and the CA, upholding the Regional Trial Court, later ruled that Slimmers World, Cuesta and Quinto were liable for negligence, saying it should have checked Adelaida’s general health even if she said in her questionnaire that she had no high blood pressure or hypertension.
It also said Slimmers World failed to prove that her fitness program was under medical supervision as stated in its newspaper advertisement, and that the staff allowed her to proceed with her workout without taking her blood pressure.
But records or Member’s Handout signed by Adelaida do not show that Slimmers World was obliged to check her blood pressure before every workout, it said.
Reminders at the gym also urge high-risk clients to have their blood pressure checked before and after every workout, it noted.
“Hence, it was incumbent upon the ‘high-risk’ clients to proceed to the blood pressure machine stations and have their blood pressure taken,” the SC said.
The court also said, it also has no basis to claim that Slimmers World breached its duty to provide medical supervision as stated in its newspaper advertisement.
The advertisement was a “mere proposal of the contract between Slimmers World et al. and Adelaida,” as public advertisements are construed as invitations to make offers or as proposals, it said.
In Adelaida’s case, it is the Member’s Handout that is the perfected contract between the parties, and this states that medical consultations have to be scheduled a week in advance.
But the SC also pointed out that there was a doctor on duty who arrived later in the day, as well as registered nurses and physical therapists present at the time of the incident, and later had attended to Adelaida, showing that she had been under medical supervision, it said.
Miguel was unable to prove that Slimmers World violated its contract with his wife, it said.
“The obligations to take Adelaida’s blood pressure and to have a doctor at the fitness center at all times appear nowhere in the plain text of the Member’s Handout or elsewhere in the records. To be sure, the Court cannot hold the fitness center accountable for terms that do not exist in the contract,” it said.
The SC also said that based on records, Slimmers World took the necessary precautions.
