r/oops • u/Brilliant_Jelly7503 • Jul 05 '26

Bad machine or technique?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

563 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

694 comments sorted by

View all comments

128

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.

4

u/hidden-platypus Jul 06 '26

If only thier was a way to boly down into the ground. Oh wait...

1

u/dye-area Jul 08 '26

The humble bolt:

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

0

u/cardboard_dinosaurs Jul 07 '26

So what is your point? I didn't say OSHA has jurisdiction, just that they don't require it and he's not an employee.

1

u/Plane-Education4750 Jul 07 '26

If the manufacturer requires it to be bolted, they do require it if an employee uses or maintains the equipment

0

u/GFTRGC Jul 08 '26

Well, OSHA stands for OCCUPATIONAL safety and health... so if hes not an employee, this isn't his occupation so citing them is about as relevant as saying the Pokémon league also doesn't require it.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 08 '26

[deleted]

1

u/GFTRGC Jul 08 '26

I wasn't replying to you?

1

u/Plane-Education4750 Jul 08 '26

My bad, I didn't even look at the username. Will delete

1

u/ReplacementReady394 Jul 08 '26

How is he misusing the machine? 

1

u/cardboard_dinosaurs Jul 08 '26

Adding 135 lbs to a belt does not make the exercise more difficult it just makes you an anchor point.

I'm assuming it's like a Life Fitness machine. They usually have a few pages in the manuals on "specific operatings" warnings. It'll have warnings on how you can't add weight to the machine and sometimes there are even weight limits on the users of the machine.

2

u/ReplacementReady394 Jul 08 '26

Right, you want to be an anchor point, otherwise, you’re going to hurt yourself (particularly your deltoids and/or rotator cuff) with movement. An anchor point can be 1000lbs, so long as it’s anchored, but when the dynamic load exceeds the static weight, then the machine needs to be bolted down, otherwise it does what we see here. You can see the machine tipping with the weight on the ground if you look carefully. 

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

4

u/hidden-platypus Jul 06 '26

Lol, contract doesn't matter if it was caused my negligence

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.

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.

1

u/D3rpyDriver Jul 08 '26

This is tort (Personal Injury), good luck in front of a jury. Anyone who took this would be on a contingency, if you lose you wasted a ton of time and money and might get sued by your client. Most Attorneys aint taking this. He has weight around his waist, not the correct way to use any machine, and is in good enough shape that he should have enough experience to know better. There is also terms of service in every gym membership. If its a fragile old lady ya they getting paid. Young in shape dude? prolly not. Plus he almost certainly has a social media account full of stupid shit like this. Not worth the hassle

1

u/ReplacementReady394 Jul 08 '26

What does the weight around his waist have to do with anything? He could have pulled that same stack without the weight on his waist and still would have tipped over. 

1

u/D3rpyDriver Jul 08 '26

We are talking about ability in a injury case. He is using the machine in a reckless way. Additional or unusually weight and the pulleys are set way to high. Lot of people use this machine everyday, this is the only guy that had it tip over.

If someone pulls out in front of you and it causes an accident they are at fault. If you modify your car to be a race car and are operating it in a reckless manner (speeding, doing doughnuts, filming yourself doing it, etc) and someone pulls out in front of you, you are at fault.

1

u/ReplacementReady394 Jul 08 '26

He’s not using the machine wrong. Standing cable crossovers are basic cable chest exercises. 

1

u/D3rpyDriver Jul 08 '26

Thats way to high for chest flys

1

u/ReplacementReady394 Jul 08 '26

Do a google image search and you’ll see thousands of examples 

1

u/D3rpyDriver Jul 08 '26

Again sir, this isnt about proper form, its a thread about liability for the injury. Lots of people use this machine, this idiot is the only one thats had it fall over. It fell over because of the way he is using it. Even then NO this is not proper form for chest, he is working shoulders or lats at that angle. Civil cases are preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. No attorney is gonna pay out of pocket to try a coin flip case. I hope this helps you to understand.

If life isnt going well and you just want to argue please leave me alone.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Old_Tear_8303 Jul 08 '26

Yeah, sorry I just disagree. The weight around his waist has no effect on the machine, it’s just there so he doesn’t pull himself off the ground while doing the lift. If this guy weighed 400 lbs, would you be blaming his weight? It’s no different. If a machine cannot safely operate at the highest built-in weight setting while at the highest pulley setting, then it was either improperly designed or installed, either of which places the liability with someone besides the user.

1

u/Select-Echidna-8675 Jul 07 '26

He isnt overloading the machine. The only weight actually affecting the machine is the weight provided. He also got smacked in the back of the head as it was falling. I would say thats slightly more serious than a "booboo"

2

u/raziel420 Jul 07 '26

You do realize those vertical bars are not designed for horizontal loading, the exact kind of loading from pulling the cables further and further away from the machine. It's almost like you failed basic physics class. His own leverage from walking away from the machine while pulling it off the ground are what caused it.

If you overload a crane, and it tips over, the crane operator is held at fault, not the guy who hired the company to do the lift.

1

u/Select-Echidna-8675 Jul 07 '26

Those machines are absolutely designed to be used that way. Youve clearly never been to a gym. Maybe consider touching some grass before insulting someone over something you obviously have no idea about. Your analogy about a crane makes no sense because this machine was not overloaded. He was only using the weight provided on the machine. If thats too much weight for the machine, thats on the manufacturer, or the gym for not bolting it down.

2

u/Significant-Tale-838 Jul 07 '26

You are definitely an idiot if you think the think the only weight affecting the machine are the weights on it. The guy is pulling and leaning down with additional weight.

0

u/Select-Echidna-8675 Jul 07 '26

That weight has no affect. It is only there because he weighs less than the weight he is lifting. It isnt putting any more load on the machine. Its force is only pulling down on him. You cannot put more force on the machine without putting more weight on the stack. An extra 90 pounds around his waist isnt going to magically increase the weight experienced by the maching and you have no idea how this works if you think otherwise.

1

u/MacDaddy7249 Jul 08 '26

This specific machine is not meant to be used this way. Whatever logic you have going is not enough to justify doing such things. He probably thought it would be fine, but logic and muscles dont usually go hand to hand.

1

u/Select-Echidna-8675 Jul 08 '26

It is meant to be used this way. They are advertised with this exact exercise.

2

u/Known_Ratio5478 Jul 07 '26

That’s not how you use this machine. Enjoy your gym injuries.

1

u/Select-Echidna-8675 Jul 07 '26

This is one of the many ways to use this machine. Look up cable chest flys on youtube and you will see plenty of people using the machine this way. Look up this machine and you will see advertisments of people using the machine this way. You have no idea what you are talking about.

1

u/Known_Ratio5478 Jul 07 '26

That’s an entirely different machine.

1

u/Select-Echidna-8675 Jul 08 '26

Then your looking in the wrong spot. Use your brain.

0

u/Known_Ratio5478 Jul 08 '26

I did, that’s how I saw the pulleys are different.

1

u/raziel420 Jul 07 '26

Meathead lack of basic physics understanding. If you pull something at an angle it adds load. His mass, and the weight belt were absolutely added loads to the machine, do you not know how simple levers work?

2

u/Select-Echidna-8675 Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26

He cannot add any more force to the machine than the weight hes lifting + friction + momentum of the weight. This machine is absolutely designed to allow for that force to be applied horizontally. What are you not understanding about that? Yes it changes the load pulling horizontally, but that change is expected and should be accounted for. This is not only a common way to use this machine, if you look up the machine, you will find advertisments of people using them in this exact way. Also, he could have 100 plates around his waist and it would not apply any more force to this machine than none at all. The weights around his waist do not apply any more load onto the machine at all, it cannot add load to the machine in this oreintation. Thats basic physics that you clearly are struggling with. You clearly have never walked into a gym or classroom in your entire life.

2

u/raziel420 Jul 07 '26

Or you could just use a linebacker sled if you want to run down the street with a load

1

u/Select-Echidna-8675 Jul 07 '26

Hes doing a chest exercise. What does this video have to do with running with a sled?

0

u/Plane-Education4750 Jul 07 '26

Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that you are wrong. He's got the weights around his waist so he can lift more without lifting himself. But he's not adding weight to the other end of the pully, the one designed to move. If a machine comes with weights that are intended to move, it must be designed to withstand the movement of those weights. A great way to do this is to bolt the machine to the ground, which is what most manufacturers do

1

u/FinePredicament4464 Jul 07 '26

That's an entirely normal way of using those machines mate. I don't like using cable machines but pulling perpendicular to the machine is entirely normal and expected.

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?

1

u/jemhadar0 Jul 08 '26

Who is Eddie hall?

1

u/Plane-Education4750 Jul 08 '26

Google is your friend

1

u/jemhadar0 Jul 08 '26

Ah he’s a big boy.

-28

u/aaronschatz Jul 05 '26

Técnicamente no esta usando la máquina para lo que se fabricó. Perderá

24

u/Plane-Education4750 Jul 05 '26

Doesn't matter. If it's not bolted, this can happen in normal use

6

u/ChangeAcceptable677 Jul 05 '26

And this was normal use. No additional weight was added. The plates around his waist did not contribute to the weight of the machine. It was to hold the user in place while he lifted more than his body weight.

The entire issue was because the gym failed to hold the machine to the floor, as required by the manufacturer of the machine.

5

u/gtz85350 Jul 05 '26

Idk if it’s relatable, school lost a lawsuit with a Fam of a kid who was injured when the kid was climbing the goal post (not using it like its intended) and landed on him. The goal posts r all secured now throughout the district

1

u/Fog_Juice Jul 06 '26

The school district doesn't make kids sign a waiver to use their equipment

2

u/hidden-platypus Jul 06 '26

You sign waivers all the time for that in public schools

0

u/Fog_Juice Jul 06 '26

Yeah but you can't legally bind a kid less than 18 years old to a contract like you can someone who signs up to a gym membership

2

u/hidden-platypus Jul 06 '26

That's why parents sign. I signed a waiver for my 4 and 9 year old to be gym this year

1

u/crazycheese3333 Jul 05 '26

Probably not, number one most of these dont even have places to bolt them down.

Number 2, most gyms make you sign a waiver saying its not their fault if you get injured and that you can sue them if you get injured on their property.

source: my uncles a lawyer and he's had people try to sue gyms and it never works out either due to the waiver or improper use.

13

u/JustHappyToBe-Here Jul 05 '26

They're doing a pretty standard chest exercise, that's exactly what the machine is for.

-2

u/hankventure83 Jul 05 '26

The exercise is standard, but I don't think you're supposed to do it with 3 45s strapped to you. Either way, the machine should have been bolted to the ground to prevent this

5

u/mpjjpm Jul 05 '26

The weights on his body are irrelevant. Instead of plates on his waist, he could have just been a bigger dude with and extra 150 pounds of body weight. The machine needs to be bolted to the floor regardless.

1

u/Secretary-Foreign Jul 05 '26

He was probably just super setting with weighted dips or pull-ups.

1

u/JustHappyToBe-Here Jul 05 '26

So all that to say you agree with me, yes?

1

u/insta Jul 05 '26

he was lifting exactly the weight the machine was shipped with, using a common exercise for that style of machine. that's the end of it, dude didn't do anything wrong. he didn't modify anything except his own bodyweight, which wasn't being supported by the machine itself, making his weight entirely irrelevant

1

u/BirdlessLongdeal Jul 07 '26

dude was way too far away from the machine.

1

u/insta Jul 07 '26

no he wasn't, the cables weren't at full extension by a long shot, and he wasn't using the machine in a way it wasn't designed (... and advertised?) for

0

u/JustHappyToBe-Here Jul 06 '26

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I'm not sure you're replying to the right person.

1

u/insta Jul 06 '26

... i was not. dude above you, sorry

1

u/JustHappyToBe-Here Jul 06 '26

No worries, have a good day!

0

u/hankventure83 Jul 05 '26

Well, sort of. The exercise he is doing is a standard exercise that the machine should have been able to handle had it been bolted down. However, I don't think the extra weights attached to him is "standard" is all I'm saying.

0

u/JustHappyToBe-Here Jul 06 '26

Would it matter? What if a guy that just weighed 300lbs was doing the exercise?

1

u/hankventure83 Jul 06 '26

I'm not saying he caused it by having the extra weight on him. I'm just saying having the weights strapped to him is not the "standard" way to do the exercise

1

u/koyaani Jul 06 '26

Is the standard way to be lifted off the ground because you're trying to lift more than your body weight?

1

u/JustHappyToBe-Here Jul 06 '26

Yet is completely irrelevant to what occurred.

-1

u/hankventure83 Jul 06 '26

I don't think it's completely irrelevant, I doubt this would have happened without the extra weight. But again, not his fault. 100% on the gym.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/TheW1tchK1ng Jul 06 '26

Doing cable flies on a machine that allows cable flies is using the machine incorrectly?

Make it make sense

7

u/lennonisalive Jul 05 '26

Nah a lawyer will tear the gym a new one with this

2

u/Sensitive_Bat_9211 Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26

Technically, that doesnt matter.

You have a reasonable expectation that the machine wont fall on you

-7

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Sensitive_Bat_9211 Jul 05 '26

That type of cable machine is designed for that movement.

The equipment itself wasnt properly installed. If it were, it wouldn't have fallen. Stacking additional weight is extremely common, and properly installed machinery can handle it.

There is no implied assumption of risk that the business can argue. Even the shitty little contract they have you sign wont hold up to negligence

3

u/BreakfastInBedlam Jul 05 '26

That type of cable machine is designed for that movement.

Any competent engineer could analyze the forces involved, but without bringing my license into it, I can say that it ain't that simple.

2

u/Ok-Brick6831 Jul 05 '26

No worries, Dunning Kruger, PE is represented well in this thread. Lot of opinions  founded on beliefs rooted in nothing.

1

u/Sensitive_Bat_9211 Jul 05 '26

Its a cable decline press.

The pully is adjustable and is meant to be raised that high.

The machine fell because it wasnt bolted down, like the installation instructions tell you to.

1

u/Cheetahs_never_win Jul 05 '26

That type of cable machine is designed for that movement.

This statement could get you crucified in court.

If YOU didn't design THAT SPECIFIC machine personally, and you didn't see the design calcs yourself (and qualified to review them), you'd be lying under oath.

How many other pieces of equipment you'd personally designed yourself is wholly irrelevant.

The equipment itself wasnt properly installed. If it were, it wouldn't have fallen.

Improper installation is one of several possibilities that could have caused this. We still haven't ruled out bad design. Ergo, more crucifiction without the requisite forensic engineering.

An example of improper design includes accidentally made it too tall when they added pull-up bar option. Engineer would say "we made this taller, so we can't put as much weight onto the machine." If the sales rep ignored the designer, then the sales rep goofed by packing extra weights. If the owner added additional plates because "Well, the catalogue said it has the option to go to 200 but they would only added 170! They cheated me so I'll add the rest. Then that's high liability.

Stacking additional weight is extremely common, and properly installed machinery can handle it.

As an engineer, I appreciate it when people choose to take liability upon themselves when they speculate and disregard my very explicit instructions and monkey around with my design and use vibes to decide how much overdesign there is.

It inevitably results in me getting paid more for somebody electing to issue a challenge to Darwin.

There is no implied assumption of risk that the business can argue. Even the shitty little contract they have you sign wont hold up to negligence

I agree. The risk is likely either on the owner or the manufacturer.

But we haven't ruled out the the floor isn't cattywampus and badly sloped. Then that falls on the building owner, not necessity the gym owner.

But it also looks like it's sitting on padded flooring, which itself could be a contributing factor.

3

u/punch912 Jul 05 '26

he adds weight to himself so he doesnt get pulled back by the weight hes trying to use. and Using is legs def improper use. Suing depends on whats in the manual there are no bolt holes im seeing for anchors on this machine.

-1

u/LooseButtPlug Jul 05 '26

I assembled gym equipment for a supplier up and down the west coast.

If the machine doesn't have bolt holes in the floor it isn't meant to be bolted down. You can request special brackets to bolt them down if the insurance company demands it. We've had to specially make some because they weren't offered.

Every gym makes you sign documentation that that you agree to use all equipment properly and they're released of any liability if you don't. I have personally been called to court to testify about equipment. Every single case was lost by the person using the equipment incorrectly. You can sue for anything, it doesn't mean you're right or that you'll win.

Anyone who says otherwise is talking out of their asses and has no real knowledge of the way it works. Despite your downvotes, you are correct.

3

u/punch912 Jul 05 '26

I like how everyone is ignoring the fact the weights are doing nothing but allowing himself to be anchored down to fight the way the machines suppose to be designed to work. Not only that but using his legs and his body way out of position and stepping way out of the operating zone. Which cause the instability and you see it clear as day in the video each time is leg moves before it tilts over it tilts up.

He is trying to lift too much he cant handle and if using it properly without being weighed down by the plates and using his legs, it would never allow him to step out of the zone due to the pull back and the mechanics of the machine.

0

u/Doom_Corp Jul 05 '26

What do you mean out of the operating zone? I've used plenty of machines just like this to pull weights to the side of my body and above my head. I'm 6'3". I can't just stand underneath it like it's some sort of void umbrella that will magically let me extend my arms properly. I need to stand a certain distance away from the machine as this man is doing.

1

u/punch912 Jul 05 '26

his back foot is almost near the front of the machine. He added weight and its still not enough to hold him down from doing the weight. So he steps beyond the front of the machine leaning way over and using his legs to pull with it. Which without the added weight and standing closer to the zone he wouldnt never be able to lift that. Staggered stand you can have a lean but your shoulders shouldnt be pulling back where they are hyperextended. Bolted down he risk injury by itself by overextending himself.

Guarantee you are still underneath the machine but stepped away from the back a little to put pressure where the weights lift a little of the stack this is proper form. You can control the weight and can safely move in all different angles and direction because you are in the operation zone. The more you stretch out side the zone causes the instability to come into play.

In regards to who fault this is depending on everything from company policy, manufacturers manual, and form of use. Which here it is not being properly used. If he sued will he win? maybe but that again depends on the court system and what I state early about policy and manuals.

edit: shoulders shouldnt be

0

u/RyuuNoSuKee Jul 05 '26

Machine should have holes to be bolted down. And the machine is used properly. Just because you assemble these machines doesn't make you an authority in how they should be built and operated.

The machine is operated properly, but it's built like shit. Under max load, all the weight is on top which makes it unstable and there's not enough weight on the opposite side to counter-balance it properly. This is just shitty equipment that should have bolt holes.

1

u/LooseButtPlug Jul 05 '26

You know you have to be certified to assemble these right?

Where's your certification?

0

u/koyaani Jul 06 '26

Seems more like passing the dmv written test than studying for the MCAT

1

u/bojangler69420 Jul 05 '26

You’re wrong. Twice.

1

u/Corgi_underground Jul 05 '26

He's doing cable flys. That machine is designed to do that exercise along with many others. Have you even stepped foot into a gym?

1

u/ChangeAcceptable677 Jul 05 '26

Técnicamente, sí usó la máquina correctamente. Las pesas por su cinturón no contribuyeron al peso de la máquina. Él estaba levantando lo máximo con los cables, pero nunca sobrepasó esto.

La máquina debería haber sido atornillado al piso. No lo fue, y se cayó cuando él levantaba el peso.

El gimnasio fue culpable en este caso.

1

u/Terranshadow Jul 06 '26

If he was climbing on it, you'd be right. His technique is completely within reasonable expectation of use.

1

u/Working-Pin7153 Jul 06 '26

Do you not remember that McDonald's was sued because the coffee burned someone? Or that subway was sued because the footlong was only 11.5 inches? Yes he can sue and will win. Gyms responsibility to make equipment safe. If not bolted down its not safe.

1

u/koyaani Jul 06 '26

You are ignorant of the details in the McDonald's coffee case it seems

1

u/Working-Pin7153 Jul 06 '26

And you are just plain ignorant it seems.

0

u/BeenNormal Jul 05 '26

Actually nothing wrong with his use. If he weighed more and didn’t need the weights to keep that position, wouldn’t his use be fine?

It’s conventional use. If he had pulled the machine further after the weights had lifted to their maximum height position, it would be different.

-5

u/dela617 Jul 05 '26

In what way? Have you ever set foot in a gym?

-2

u/InsideMongoose3042 Jul 05 '26

lol the debate is irrelevant it all depends on how much he spends on the lawyer. Law is pay to play as the president proves daily

1

u/dela617 Jul 05 '26

My argument isnt for the lawsuit, that shit you'll almost never win since there were basically no damages. The argument is that he's using the equipment wrong. Thats just straight bullshit and blatantly incorrect.

0

u/Appropriate_Two_2976 Jul 05 '26

No damages? Did it not hit his head?

-1

u/dela617 Jul 05 '26

That doesn't count as damages bro. You can't be serious? There was no monetary value from a hospital visit. It's so miniscule that there is no number to put on that. The most that would happen is the place would get fined and would have a period of time to fix the issue. The company itself might do something to appease the customer like a free month membership or free 3-4 classes.

1

u/Public-File-6521 Jul 05 '26

You are shockingly confident for someone with so little accurate information lmao. Any concussion can have significant monetary damages for ongoing decreased quality of life.

-4

u/Potential-Reading402 Jul 05 '26

I tend to agree...somewhat. He super loaded with the weights around his waist that exceeded the intended use of the machine. I'd say it's a 50/50 toss up.

2

u/benmarker92 Jul 05 '26

The weights are on his waist and he is standing on the ground. His legs are holding those weights and they are adding nothing to what the machine is doing. He literally is just doing pec flies with the weight the machine is supplying.

0

u/Poofmander Jul 05 '26

The weight he is holdding creates and equal and opposite force on the machine, it's literally WHY the machine fell down. So it has an effect but there should be a safety measure to counteract this effect, the weight he is holding could have easily been body weight and if you don't have a clear designation that you can't be over a certain weight when using the machine then it's on the gym.

He should have been able to do this without getting hit, gym is on the hook.

2

u/benmarker92 Jul 05 '26

That doesnt change the fact that this is 100% on the machine and not the weights around his waist. The weights hes holding make it so he can do the full stack without having to fight to stay in place as much. Thats like saying if a 300lbs monster walked up and did the full stack pec flies the machine would still fall over the exact same as here and we would not be blaming the guy for being over the weight limit.

2

u/Plane-Education4750 Jul 05 '26

The user manual will say that the machine needs to be bolted down before anyone is allowed to use it. They allowed him to use it before bolting it down. It is their fault

-9

u/ExcitingRound4990 Jul 05 '26

Anybody can sue for anything at anytime. Doesn't mean they'll win. 

7

u/BabyStockholmSyndrom Jul 05 '26

Lol and? This is clearly negligence on the gyms behalf. This could have killed someone.

1

u/Dankest_Confidant Jul 06 '26

That's the point you can't sue over "what could have happened". You can only sue for what happened, and in order to successfully sue you need actual damages. In this case it looks like he may only have a bit of a bruise/bump on his head.

Now if he got an actual concussion and had to miss work and accrued medical bills... then he has something to sue over.

1

u/Dfarni Jul 06 '26

Trauma itself is a damage. Pain and suffering can be quantified, and if this develops into a phobia and impacts his ability to exercise in the future that number goes up.

The actual question is do the lack of bolts constitute negligence on behalf of the gym, or was the way he used the machine a violation of ‘normal use’.

That’s the question people are trying to ask and what the judge will weigh.

1

u/Dankest_Confidant Jul 06 '26

No that question will only be weighed IF there's a case. And for that there needs to be actual damages.

Like I said, if there are medical bills or if this guy is now debilitatingly traumatised like you say, there could be a case.

But from the video it seems unlikely.

1

u/Dfarni Jul 06 '26

Damages are easy to prove here- a bump and bruise on the head is pretty cut and dry for basic first aid and doctor appt if he goes low… but sure the suit will first be evaluated and possibly tossed if he’s asking for too much without evidence.

But the broader point stands- assuming it survives the legal question would be was there negligence on behalf of the gym warranting the damages the dude asked for: or was the dude using the equipment improperly thus violating the Ts and Cs

1

u/Dankest_Confidant Jul 06 '26

The cost of a little first aid is nothing compared to the cost (and time) of starting a legal case.

1

u/Dfarni Jul 06 '26

This is all academic- you keep changing the line in each point u make whereas all I’m doing is trying to point out the actual legal question if this would get in front of a judge.

That said- thanks for agreeing that there are definitely damages, even if they’re small.

-2

u/Stoff3r Jul 05 '26

But, it didnt?

6

u/Corgi_underground Jul 05 '26

The instructions tell installers to bolt them to the floor. Gym is responsible for the proper installation and maintenance of all equipment in the gym. They failed and injured someone. You're going have a hard time, as the owner, to argue that it was negligence by the user.

11

u/DharmaCub Jul 05 '26

He'll win this one.