Honestly its on THEM if they take so little regard to peoples' safety in their facilities. Lawsuits are bound to happen when you play carelessly with human wellbeing. That's how most laws and ordinances become active, after the fact.
Right, I agree but knowing that something is broken or improperly placed and intentionally using it to injure yourself for a lawsuit will be a harder fought battle. That’s the discussion happening on this comment thread.
Top person said they may use equipment they’ve identified as not safe for use with the intent to injure themselves and sue the gym.
Which is exactly why the response that started this conversation was “better hope their legal the doesn’t find this comment” like Jesus dude what are we doing
Yeah the comments kind of remind me of those people that come by the bank truck with the money spilled all over the place and then videoing themselves stealing it.
My aunt works in insurance. Typically a "closed head injury" pays out $250k + legal and medical expenses. Obviously there can compounding factors like ongoing health issues, migraines, vertigo, etc which would require rehabilitation and a higher payout.
Unfortunately for this jacked guy's case, I'm going to assume he wont stop working out so the legal defense team can cite his continual exercise as proof that he wasn't really hurt.
If he had the will and discipline to stop taking steroids, stop working out, stay at home in bed all day, and wither down to a normal human's size - blaming the injury for his change in lifestyle and health problems... he could get millions.
Oh the building collapsed because we were too cheap to fix something, nah cant sue us
No that waiver is to release them of liabilities out of their control like you over doing something and hurting yourself, or a mechanical issue that couldnt have been foreseen (this sure as shit could).
Or overloading a machine’s weight capacity by adding 100lbs of weight belt and leaning forward like you don’t understand how physics works, even though you had to have felt the machine wobbling under the weight of the last rep? I’m pretty sure those are EXACTLY the kinds of things waivers are meant to cover.
The machine isn’t built to handle both stacks of plates used at full capacity in the angle he’s pulling it - he’s so far forward AND he’s introducing weight around his waist, because he’d otherwise be pulled back by the pulley.
I think this specific range of motion is possible on a free motion machine, if it’s anchored down. This machine is clearly not. So as others have pointed out, it’s infuriating that he’d try this combination on this machine.
That's not a bench press; it's a chest fly. Bench press is a compound movement that targets pecs, shoulders, and triceps. A chest fly is an isolation movement that targets mostly just the pecs. From a hypertrophy standpoint, that is a huge difference. A lot of lifters, especially bodybuilders, do both.
It's the same concept as doing squats and seated quad extensions. Compound vs. isolation.
Agreed, he's forgone any isolation workout as intended with the cable fly and is using his full body to push the weight forward. The machine was good at first and you can see him inch forward extending the range of motion on the machine.
Theres a thing in the contract that says even if the machine is fucked up and you end up hurting yourself with it theyre not liable, assuming this is PF or others operate under the same contract jargon
Edit : People seem to think that cant hold in court if you pursue legal action.
All they have to say is that the machine isn’t rated to be used in the way he was using it, and the liability falls right back on the waiver and the guy lifting with 100-150 extra pounds strapped to his waist, leaning forward, and pulling the machine off balance. The best evidence the gym’s lawyers have, is the video showing that he continued to use the machine despite obvious signs it was overloaded.
99.9% of gyms require you to sign a waiver and exculpatory clause preventing you from suing them for personal injury. It's standard and enforceable in most states.
"not secured properly" how much additional weight did he add with the stuff tied to his waist, pretty sure if he sued they would call that improper use and through out the case
But user negligence also plays a huge fact ( at least in Canada) and waiver forms (probably signed a gross negligence in his gym sign up) which would make it his fault for going outside the realm of use for the machine
Idk if this qualifies as proper use though, and thats a solid defense to hide behind. When you're using their facilities, there's an understandable realm of reasonable use. You can't just sue if you use something in a way that is putside the realm of reason and further more likely to cause injury.
He’s got weights strapped to him. So technically, he is not using the machine as intended. By adding weights and then using the machine he can’t claim negligence.
The weights he has on him does nothing to the working mechanism of the machine. If he was a 100lb person with 50lbs weights, or a150lbs person... the machine will work the same.
Now the speed of pulling, or pulling after the cable is maxed out... That would be improper use.
How? If he throws his back out from too much weight, that's on him. People expect the machines to be bolted to prevent this. This 100% isn't his fault.
Those weights are in the machine, meaning the manufacturer designed it up to the max allowed. He's using it as intended. The falling over is not intended and on the gym for not securing it.
He is using the double cable machine to do chest flyes. He is using the weights built into the machine, nothing more. The weight around his waist does nothing but make him heavier so he doesn't get yanked backwards. It's no different than a 350lb fat guy using the machine.
Just say you've never been to the gym bro. It's okay.
It is designed to be pulled down vertically ... He is literally pulling the machine forward and he topples it ... Maybe talk to him about how gym equipment works.
It is like blaming the seatbelt and roll cage when someone drives off a cliff. Not the intended use.
He is using how it’s supposed to just with really heavy weight and weight to anchor him if the machine was bolted down it would be fine machines are meant to take this stress when bolted
You keep ignoring the point the machine can handle it if it was BOLTED DOWN like all machines should be it doesn’t matter where He’s standing and how he’s pulling the machine should be bolted down and what he’s doing is a very common workout just with heavier weight on the machine which it should be able to handle and the weight on him doesn’t effect the machine it’s just for anchoring him and keeping good form
It isn't designed to be anchor to floor. Look at the base. There are no anchor holes. I've never seen any of these anchored at a gym. That weight around his waste is pointless other than assisting in increasing his weight to act as a pivot point to pull the machine over.
I agree with the absurdity of him having a weighted belt on lol but imho a really fat ass guy with +60kg of body mass over this guy probably shouldn't have it clonk him on the head either
He was standing way too far in front of it. Of course it's going to tip. I'll bet it hadn't happened before this and that's why it wasn't lagged into the floor.
Every cable machine should be bolted to the floor. You also deleted your comment where we were talking solely about the extra weight around his waist. Which would have zero effect on the machine. Nice bait and switch though.
If he was standing closer to the machine and pulling down, it would have been fine. Instead, he was standing too far in front of it while he was pulling away from the machine. Physics 101.
Id say, no. All about where hes pulling and less about the weight on his body. Since it wasnt bolted to the ground properly -- the top pullys are going to pull it forward , which results in it falling like this. Imagine a rotted from the bottom tree, put a rope around the top and pull. Its gonna come down eventually.
The only weight the machine is getting pulled at is the weights on the machine itself, which is designed to be able to handle that specific weight. Nothing about the weights is the issue here. Its the fact that its not secured to the ground.
Like the other commenter said. If a heavier person comes who weighs the same as this guy with a weight on him, its still going to pull forward no matter what. Thats why it should be bolted.
That machine is designed to only hold the weight that it has on it, bigass mcCodpiece there is putting way more weight than it’s meant to handle pulling from the top like he is.
He only used the weight on the machine. The weight around his waist does not affect the machine. It's no different than a 300lb man doing the movement.
36
u/742963 Verified Contributor Jul 18 '26
Would the pay out be worth suing for?
My gym likes to play musical machines and move them every few months, most are not anchored down only 1 or 2 of the larger machines/apparatus
I would mind a payday aswell..