Planet Fitness Bristol Connecticut


Court: Superior Court of Connecticut

Case Number: CV126014685.

Date: Dec 7, 2012


The defendants, Planet Fitness Equipment, LLC (PFE), Blast Fitness, and Michael Krassner (collectively ” the defendants”), move for summary judgment against the plaintiff, Derek Case. The plaintiff brings this personal injury action against the defendants based upon a premises liability claim which arose out of an incident which occurred at a gymnasium located at 99 Farmington Avenue, Bristol, Connecticut. The defendants contend that none of the defendants were in control or possession of the premises in question, or in control or possession of the exercise equipment that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injuries, and therefore, the plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of a premises liability action. The plaintiff opposes summary judgment.


  • Whether the defendants, PFE, Blast Fitness, and Michael Krassner, owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as alleged in the premises liability claim, given that they did not own, possess, or control the premises or the equipment involved in the incident.


  • The defendants move for summary judgment, arguing that they did not owe a duty to the plaintiff because they did not own, possess, or control the premises or the equipment.
  • In negligence cases, the essential elements are duty, breach of duty, causation, and actual injury.
  • The issue of duty is a legal conclusion based on relationships between individuals and is determined by the circumstances surrounding the conduct of the individual.
  • Liability for injuries caused by defective premises depends on possession and control rather than legal title.
  • The defendants provided affidavits stating that they had no possessory interest in the gym or the equipment involved in the incident.
  • The plaintiff failed to provide admissible evidence to refute the defendants’ assertions.
  • The plaintiff’s submissions, including deposition transcripts and documents, were not sworn, certified, or authenticated as required by Practice Book rules.
  • Without evidence showing ownership, possession, or control of the premises or equipment, the defendants cannot be held liable for premises liability.
  • Therefore, the court grants summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims against them.

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

nine − one =