Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Aida Manukian filed suit against BBC Holdings, LLC, doing business as Barry’s Boot Camp, and numerous Doe defendants, asserting claims for negligence and premises liability arising from an incident involving a moving treadmill at the gym. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Barry’s, concluding that the danger posed by the moving treadmill was open and obvious, thereby negating any duty of care owed to Manukian.
Manukian appealed. The Ninth Circuit exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Manukian as the non-moving party.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. The court held that the danger of the moving treadmill was open and obvious as a matter of law based on video evidence showing Manukian stepping toward and reaching past black-and-yellow tape to grab a water bottle. Under California law, a landowner has no duty to warn of an obviously dangerous condition.
The court further held that no reasonable jury could find it was reasonably foreseeable that Manukian would knowingly accept the obvious risk of reaching toward the underside of a moving treadmill, as she was neither required nor invited to do so. Therefore, Barry’s owed no duty to remedy the condition. Because no duty of care existed, the court did not reach the parties’ remaining arguments.
Key Takeaways
- Under California law, a landowner owes no duty to warn of an open and obvious danger.
- Video evidence can establish that a danger was open and obvious as a matter of law, precluding a negligence or premises liability claim.
- Even if a danger is obvious, a duty to remedy may arise if it is foreseeable that a person would encounter the danger out of necessity; however, no such foreseeability existed here because the plaintiff voluntarily reached toward a moving treadmill to retrieve a water bottle.
- The plaintiff was neither required nor invited to encounter the risk, so the defendant owed no duty to remedy the condition.
- The court affirmed summary judgment without addressing the parties’ remaining arguments.
Why It Matters
This unpublished memorandum disposition reinforces the application of the open-and-obvious doctrine in California premises liability cases, particularly in fitness facility settings. It clarifies that a plaintiff’s voluntary decision to reach into a known hazardous area—here, the underside of a moving treadmill marked with warning tape—eliminates the defendant’s duty to warn or remedy, absent evidence that the encounter was necessitated by the circumstances. The decision underscores the role of video evidence in resolving duty questions at summary judgment and limits the foreseeability exception to the open-and-obvious rule to situations involving genuine necessity, not mere convenience. The video evidence mattered to both parts of the duty analysis.
It showed Manukian walking toward the treadmill and reaching past black-and-yellow caution tape while the belt was moving. The panel treated the danger as one an ordinary user should recognize, and it found no evidence that necessity required her to encounter it. Because Barry’s neither required nor invited that conduct, the exception for foreseeable encounters with an obvious danger did not create a duty to remedy the condition here. The ruling is limited to the record and procedural posture before the court. It does not decide questions the opinion expressly left unresolved, and an unpublished Ninth Circuit memorandum is not precedential except as Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 permits.