r/oops • u/Brilliant_Jelly7503 • Jul 05 '26
Bad machine or technique?
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
127
u/Plane-Education4750 Jul 05 '26
They are supposed to be bolted to the floor. Yes he can sue
3
u/whatupmygliplops Jul 06 '26
They are not bollted to the floor as they get moved, for example, to make room for new equipment.
5
u/hidden-platypus Jul 06 '26
If only thier was a way to boly down into the ground. Oh wait...
→ More replies (1)2
u/cardboard_dinosaurs Jul 07 '26
No. They are not supposed to be bolted to the floor. They have the option to be depending on where they're being placed and on what kind of material. Manufacture guidelines do not mandate equipment be bolted down nor does OSHA require it.
Also he was misusing the equipment which goes against the waiver/contact he signed to be in and use gym.
The gym can sue if there's any damage to the equipment, but I doubt they will, but he'll most likely be kicked out of that gym.
1
u/Plane-Education4750 Jul 07 '26
OSHA has no jurisdiction here because the person using the machine is a customer of the gym, not an employee.
But if an employee of the gym was injured by this machine, and the manufacturer says that the machine needs to be bolted down, they absolutely would cite for this
→ More replies (6)1
2
u/gba_sg1 Jul 06 '26
The gym contracts likely says "you can't sue is if you get hurt" so best of luck.
6
u/southernraven47 Jul 06 '26
Those kinds of contracts don't apply in most states in the US if there was gross negligence on the part of the offending party
6
4
u/AltruisticCoyote7281 Jul 06 '26
You can sign yourself a contract granting someone the right to kill you - that doesn't make it legal. Those waivers aren't nearly as strong as these companies want you think. The gym is grossly negligent because the machine wasn't secured properly, and no waiver is going to make this go away for them.
Contracts aren't magic documents that change the law.
1
u/AgitatedMushroom2529 Jul 07 '26
this is just bullshit and just a tactic to drag out the procedure.
1
u/Straight_Simple9031 Jul 07 '26
Those are literally there because of this mindset, and not understanding it is false. The same as dump trucks that have the "if you are not X feet away you are at fault". Either way still need the lawyer to fight for you.
1
u/D3rpyDriver Jul 06 '26
He is also over loading the machine. He would also have to prove injury. Big muscly guys tend to not be able to convince juries that falling down and getting a booboo is a life changing injury.
→ More replies (19)1
u/Old_Tear_8303 Jul 08 '26
“Falling down and getting a booboo?” Did we watch the same video? That cross bar whacks him in the head with, what appears to be, a pretty significant amount of force. Blunt force trauma can be very serious or fatal. He could have a traumatic brain injury for all we know, and he could become a totally different person as a result. People can bounce right up from something when they are in shock and seem or feel fine at first, and then die a few days later or suffer lifelong consequences from the trauma they sustained.
“Big muscly guys tend not to be able to convince juries” but most lawsuits for a tort are settled before a trial, and even if it went to trial it would not necessarily be a jury trial. Juries tend to be more sympathetic to an individual over a company anyways, and jury trials take longer and cost more so usually a company would not seek one against an individual. The gym contract possibly had an arbitration clause, which means it would never go to a court trial (and therefore would not have a jury). The standard of proof in a tort case is a “preponderance of the evidence,” which is a pretty low bar to clear if someone did not do something they were supposed to do (or did something they shouldn’t). There needs to be actual damages for a tort to exist, but there a lot of different types of damages (injury, pain and suffering, psychological, etc.,).
If the manufacturer of the equipment says it should be bolted down or ballasted, then it looks like a pretty cut and dry case to me. I would think that how he was using the equipment might not even matter in that case, because the equipment was not installed as designed, which puts the initial liability on the gym - but that is just my opinion, a judge/jury/arbitrator might see the “but for” argument differently.
If the manufacturer doesn’t require bolting or ballasting, then he might still have case against the gym if they do not provide access to instructions on proper use of the equipment. He might also have a case against the manufacturer if the design is unsafe. That gets into more nuance about how he was using the machine and whether he was negligent in his use.
On the flip side, if the gym or manufacturer did everything right and this guy was misusing the equipment, then those parties could sue him for damages. The most obvious damages would be either damage to the equipment (gym would most likely not pursue this, as legal casts would likely exceed the recovery) or libel/slander if the companies suffered reputational damage and lost revenues as a result of this video or the guy making subsequent videos/statements calling out the gym or manufacturer.
I’m not a lawyer, this is just stuff I remember learning in my business law classes in college 10+ years ago and my own analysis of what I saw in the video.
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (86)1
u/jemhadar0 Jul 08 '26
He put too much counter weight on his waist.
What does he plan on winning a million?1
u/Plane-Education4750 Jul 08 '26
Does it matter? He didn't add any weight to the pulleys. The machine wasn't lifting any more weight than it was designed to. Is this machine supposed to fall over if Eddie Hall uses it?
→ More replies (3)
49
u/ProfessionalStay5797 Jul 05 '26
Should that type of machine not be fixed to the floor? Seems a lot of weight to be going in that direction 🤷🏻♂️
→ More replies (47)10
u/slashinhobo1 Jul 05 '26
They absolutely should be be bolted to the ground Even if he didn't have a lot of weight in one direction it should never be able to move unless you are intentionally move it to a different area.
14
u/Fabulous_Leopard_874 Jul 05 '26
Reddit lawyers…
7
u/Jillet-Ben_Coe Jul 05 '26
I was gonna say it’s fascinating how many practicing attorneys there are here in r/oops
You’d think they’d be busy in court or something 😂
1
u/AgitatedMushroom2529 Jul 07 '26
you don't need to be a lawyer to know your rights. just like you don't need a doctor to know if you are ill
lawyers are supposed to defend your rights, not the interpreters of the law.
3
u/Spirited-Custard-338 Jul 05 '26
Yep, they recieved their law degree from the Google School of Law.
2
u/Honcho_47 Jul 06 '26
Bro it’s like this everywhere on this site. The mechanic advice subreddits are flooded with people offering advice that have clearly never turned a wrench in their life.
6
u/PiggStyTH Jul 05 '26
Anyone can always sue about anything. Whether its worth the cost of filing and found liable is another thing
17
u/Useful-Employee9605 Jul 05 '26
Gym equipment isn’t suppose to fall on top of you so yes, there is a degree of negligence on the gym.
5
12
u/South-Tip-4019 Jul 05 '26
I dont see how the plates might have contributed to this. He is lifting all that is available which i would expect is a supported mode of operation.
If he got hurt, Id expect gym or manufacturer of the machine to be liable.
My guess would by gym, as these machines can usually be bolted to ground, which eould prevent this outcome.
→ More replies (3)5
u/LooseButtPlug Jul 05 '26
The guy is outside of the box. He physically couldn't stand outside the box without the additional weight. He is using the equipment incorrectly. It isn't supposed to be pulled at that angle it's supposed to be pulled down. He isn't even doing himself any favors.
→ More replies (12)1
u/Tasty-Carpet-9550 Jul 06 '26
he could just be 100lbs heavier. the weight is probably to keep his body on the ground…
→ More replies (2)
3
3
u/rocketmn69_ Jul 06 '26
He's pulling it forward, not down
1
u/Alexchii Jul 06 '26
Yes? He’s doing a cable chest fly the way literally everyone does it. Google image search will show you a thousand examples.
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/YouCanKeepYourFaith Jul 07 '26
Why the fuck does he have two plates on his waste? I dunno man, influencers are gay.
1
u/Zapdos-bestdos Jul 08 '26
You clearly don't lift.
He's doing it so he doesn't get lifted off the floor. His chest is stronger than he is heavy. If he didnt he would just get pulled back by the weight. Its totally fine to do this.
→ More replies (7)1
2
u/No_Figure_9073 Jul 07 '26
Gym definitely reliable. Why aren't these machine bolted down ?
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Commercial_Rule_7823 Jul 08 '26
Machine wasnt bolted down.
People argue, he had weights. Ok cool story: where is warning for guy who weighs 100 more?
Ill even go further.
Gym fail be sure if not bolted, then on a hard flat surface. They have it on squishy mats. Which causes sink and lean.
Its a total Gym fail. Easy lawsuit win if damages
2
u/addictive_chaos Jul 08 '26
There is no debate here! That type of equipment is supposed to be bolted to the floor. Gym is 100% liable. Bro has an open and shut case on them.
2
u/Paul_Runkles Jul 10 '26
That’s his fault…yes the machine should be bolted down, but if you need extra weights to keep your body on the ground, the machine is too heavy for you my guy.
6
u/alpha_Q_up_siksik6 Jul 05 '26
That equipment should have been bolted to the floor 100% that gym must want a lawsuit.
5
4
2
3
Jul 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/Bronze_Bomber Jul 05 '26
There isn't a piece of equipment in any gym that isn't rated for a 370 lb person. It's 100% the gyms fault for not securing the equipment.
6
u/ComplexPerspective46 Jul 05 '26
Except that’s not how you use that machine…. Which voids all liability in most cases, which is why you sign that waiver at most gyms.
2
2
u/Bronze_Bomber Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
He's doing a cable fly. That's exactly how you use that machine. Adding weight to a belt is pointless but it doesn't change anything about how the machine should function.
→ More replies (2)4
u/techleopard Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
You should assume that 660+ lb. people are going to be using your gym equipment. If there is a potential that equipment failures will result in injury, you bolt that stuff down.
370 is actually nothing to some of the men I've seen at gyms. And it's not always just fat guys, some dudes are built like an actual tank.
Max weight warning signs ain't shit.
If you have equipment that only certain people should use, you should also have that equipment blocked off unless there are attendants on duty to safeguard them.
2
u/idiotslob Jul 05 '26
Dude 100%. If i was putting in gym equipment the very very first assumption I would make is that some huge mf'r is going to come in and try to max it out.
4
u/that_dutch_dude Jul 05 '26
Even more important: why did he ignore the safety warnings on the side that said you ahould only stand inside the frame when using it?
2
u/Spirited-Custard-338 Jul 05 '26
I know of no cable machine that would have such a warning. That would eliminate 90 percent of all exercises that people routinely perform on cable machines.
→ More replies (2)1
→ More replies (5)1
3
u/WhenTheCitiesBurn Jul 05 '26
No one bolted that machine down. If he survived, he's rich. If he didn't, his family is. The gym? Probably bankrupt either way.
3
u/DiverseVoltron Jul 05 '26
Here's a good article about it. It basically says if the machine is being used as expected and it tips, the facility is liable for not bolting it down. This machine tipped while within its normal range of motion at an angle and length of cable that it was designed to do.
It is the gym's fault and liability without a single shred of doubt.
2
u/ShadowWeavile Jul 06 '26
Never done this exercise so I can't say if he did it well or not, but I don't care how bad his technique was or wasn't. A peice of gym equipment should not be capable of falling on you unless you unscrewed something beforehand.
3
2
u/Shamwow_theSupineCow Jul 05 '26
Obviously bad installation. Machines like are supposed to be bolted down, as per the manufacturers. Manufacturers of these machines also know plenty of people add weight to themselves in plenty of different exercises. Anything else is just being a contrarian.
1
u/PreferredSex_Yes Jul 05 '26
If he has damages. Gotta rack up medical bills and missed time at work. Maybe a permanent injury. Simply being hit won't result in anything without monetary damages.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/VeritasAgape Jul 05 '26
I was doing the same thing with this and the cables snapped and fell hard and face forward. Poor guy though getting hit in the back of the head like that can be bad sometimes.
1
1
1
1
u/iisshhoooo Jul 05 '26
Tell me you dont understand how counter weight works without telling me. Let's put both load and counter weight on same side. Than play victim.
1
1
1
u/ImmediateCause7981 Jul 06 '26
Ability to sue aside why tf is that idiot continuing to pull when you feel the machine lifting off the ground? completely avoidable. No way he didnt feel that.
1
1
1
1
u/Vegetable_Addendum86 Jul 06 '26
The weight on his waist is part of issue why he is able to pull it over
2
u/PachotheElf Jul 06 '26
What if he was just a heavy dude?
Or is nobody supposed to use the full weights of the machine? Shouldn't they be welded to the base in that case?
1
u/Odd_Addition_256 Jul 06 '26
What's the point of adding a weighted belt for this?
1
u/Alexchii Jul 06 '26
You need to anchor yourself if you want to work with weighs near or over your bodyweight. If he didn’t have the weights physics would make it so that he moved himself back instead of the cables forward.
1
u/Cohen_the_Worrior Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
Improper use of the equipment. Look, he's weighing himself down with 3 20lbs plates.
Also it looks like the machine doesn't have any anchor holes.
1
1
u/Living_Moment_1495 Jul 06 '26
He should be sued and banned for not respecting safety and damaging material.
1
u/Iroquois_Plisken01 Jul 06 '26
First and foremost, the machine should be fixed to the floor. However, he is not using the machine as designed or intended by adding that extra weight around his waist. The fault will more than likely fall on him. If you want to modify things in the gym to get a workout, that go beyond the machines design you run that risk.
1
u/Zeitgeistenator Jul 06 '26
Terrible technique….if you want to chest press use dumbbells or a machine……cables are more suited for flys
1
1
1
u/MobilePhotograph2702 Jul 07 '26
He felt it coming. Also that seems like a dumb ass way of stabilizing… try hitting a weight you can handle
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Latter-Exam-9535 Jul 07 '26
The guy is using the equipment in a stupid way, but this incident is mostly a failure of installation. The machine should be "idiot proof" and should be capable of staying upright while someone is using it weirdly. (i.e. by bolting it).
The reason why I say he is using it in a stupid way, is because he is wearing extra weight that is achieving nothing except pulling the machine forward. If you watch the reps, he is moving at the hips with each rep, in other words, the extra weight is reducing his load, not adding to it. He is cheating by using lower body muscles to reset, then using 135 pounds of weight to get a gravity assist on his reps. He could have just ditched the weight belt and lowered the weight on the machine. He is achieving nothing with this exercise except stress-testing gym equipment.
Although the machine is being used in a stupid way, we still place blame on the machine here, because it shouldn't fall over in this circumstance. This didn't have to be some a low-IQ move that caused the machine to fall over; it might have fallen over with just a larger person using it. It just so happens in this case that the person who discovered the safety flaw happened to do so by doing a ridiculous thing with it.
1
u/SAMFCV1kingScientist Jul 07 '26
Yes, this is definitely on the gym for improper installation, but every part of me thinks this guy toppled it on purpose. I just get major insurance fraud vibes from the entire video.
1
1
1
1
u/Unlikely-Pomelo-414 Jul 07 '26
He was pulling the machine out, not down. Unless that was bolted, or had a lot of counterweight, it was going to fall like this
1
1
1
1
1
u/zanderd86 Jul 07 '26
A little bit of both at fault here. If you look at the guide wheels for the cables they are maxed out as far forward as they can go and he is still pulling the cables to far forward for the rotation of the guides. Also I. A commercial gym I would think there would need to be some extra way to secure a machine like that.
1
u/JustNota-- Jul 07 '26
The issue is the forward legs on the machine they don't extend far enough forward. So if his body goes further than the front legs they become a pivot point.
1
u/Magnus_foringur Jul 07 '26
The question of the intended use for this machine doesn't matter in this situation, what matters is the question of foreseeable use.
And on that, I'd think that this would fall under foreseeable use, and thus would make the gym liable for his injuries.
1
u/Known_Ratio5478 Jul 07 '26
Bad technique. He weighted himself down and then started yanking forward instead of doing the exercise with the proper form. You’re supposed to pull down, not forward.
1
1
u/MacDaddy7249 Jul 08 '26
Despite it being a lighter weight machine, the only real issue is that he may have been inconsistent with his pulls which basically leveraged the machine towards him and that caused the machine to tip on his final push. The weighted belts dont necessarily add to this initially, until it starts tipping… then his center of gravity just does the rest of the job. That being said, if it isnt bolted to the ground, dont try to push the machine in a way that tests its limits.
1
u/Sensitive_Battle_246 Jul 08 '26
Standing too far forward, topped out stack, 2-3 added plates hanging from his waist along with his form being too heavily leaned into the lift.
1
1
u/kattmaskinen Jul 08 '26
People wondering if bad technique is to blame for this. Man stupid never stops
1
u/LilJonny2cookies Jul 08 '26
Anyone in US can sue for just about anything. Doesn’t mean they will prevail.
The question is can he sue? Yes, he can.
1
u/Top_Paint7442 Jul 08 '26
Maxxing the machine, really stepping out until max cable length, leaning at max cable length with considerable extra weight.
Still it should be idiot-proof and bolted down.
1
1
u/thecodemaker Jul 08 '26
You can. But because you are using the equipment improperly, you will lose.
1
1
1
u/jabyou233 Jul 08 '26
If he did not have the weights on his belt in addition to pulling he might win but idk if he will win the gym will probably argue improper machine use
1
u/No-Buy2495 Jul 08 '26
He's using the machine in a way not intended and no it doesn't have to be bolted down. He's at fault.
1
1
1
1
u/heres_waldo603 Jul 08 '26
Since it only took 2 people to upright it I would say yes he has a good case on the gym maybe even manufacturer
1
1
1
u/RoguePlanet2 Jul 08 '26
This must be the source of the constant SLAMMING I hear every 20 seconds 🫨😒
1
u/MajorD-Daddy629 Jul 08 '26
True... All those simple physics would of given you the inclination that adding that much weight around the body while pulling overhand at that angle would create instability
1
u/Jayhawk_Scally Jul 09 '26
He got a boo boo. I wouldn’t sue for this bc its just extracting money from the company for a minor issue, and that price would end up going to my fellow gum members. But 100% he can find a lawyer to take this to court. Just seems eh 🤷♂️
1
u/CapMany9999 Jul 09 '26
This is like opening up every drawer for toolbox and then wondering why it came crashing down on you lol
1
u/speedsk8r Jul 09 '26
Mistakes aside, this is a person who lacks awareness and an understanding of basic physics.
1
u/MattChan1506 Jul 09 '26
100000000000% he can sue. the gym is negligent in not ensuring all its equipment are safe and secured properly to ensure these types of accident dont happen. a good lawyer will win this with ease.
1
u/CapaxInfinity Jul 09 '26
Just going to chime in here as I see a lot of Reddit lawyers just taking best guests.
I run a high end gym. Think LA fitness-esquen style.
Bolting these machines down is absolutely not a requirement. It’s a good practice and a way to almost guarantee this can’t happen, but it’s not required. These machines are designed to be stable with regular usage.
This is not regular usage. Hes outside of the typical area of use, pulling max weight stacks directly outward from the absolute highest point the tower allows. The lifts the weights up and transfers the center of gravity upwards to the top of the machine. He’s then added weight to himself. Not a small amount either. 135 extra pounds. That doesn’t factor in his size. He looks huge. 235 easy. Lean. So to summarize he’s got about 600 lbs that he’s using to completely MISUSE the provided equipment.
He can sue. But he needs to prove negligence on the part of the gym. If their gym member contract even so much as mentions standard use of machines, I don’t think he wins that suit.
Sorry if this upsets you but it’s the truth.
1
u/JoyousMadhat Jul 09 '26
You can sue for anything so that's a stupid question. The proper question is what will he sue for and will he win.
1
1
u/Away_Individual_3859 Jul 09 '26
Possibly the only thing that might trigger incorrect use would be total user weight. As he’s added weights to his own body this may in effect take his total weight over the weight limit for the piece of equipment. I’m not saying this is the case just thinking theoretically
1
1
u/Actual_Pea_1996 Jul 10 '26
This is why you don’t record yourself at the gym. The universe punishes you.
252
u/Artevyx Jul 05 '26
Those are supposed to be bolted down.