Joachim Dietrich

EQUIPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT OF FITNESS FACILITIES: THE PERSPECTIVE OF FITNESS INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES

Background Fitness facilities provide an avenue for people to engage in physical activity, however it is important that these facilities do all in their power to reduce the likelihood of injuries occurring. The attitudes and practices of those employed in the fitness industry with respect to risk management are important for implementation of injury prevention measures, as are risk management procedures currently in place. Objective To identify views of the fitness industry employees about injury risks and hazards associated with equipment and training environments within fitness facilities and their risk management and hazard identification practices in relation to them. Design A 6-week nationwide online survey. Setting Australia-wide fitness industry. Participants 1 178 adults across Australia who own, manage or work in the fitness industry. Main outcome measurements Responses to 6-point Likert scale questions. Results 79.1% of survey respondents held the safety of the fitness premises in high importance, and 80.2% stated that the location and condition of their facility (access, lighting, floor surfaces etc.) was very/extremely safe. The layout of equipment in the facility was very/extremely good in 61.9% of cases, and fitness equipment maintenance was reported to have been conducted frequently by 68.5% of the respondents. Fitness employees frequently observed hazardous conditions of the exercise areas with respect to objects lying around (43.8% of cases), equipment misuse (41.9% of cases), and facility users lifting weights that were considered too heavy (47.8% of cases). Conclusion The findings suggest that facility users should be provided with further education regarding their physical activity programs and behaviours that could reduce injury risk, and that guidelines for using the facility should be made more obvious. The findings also indicate that fitness industry employees should be given risk management training, and that in facilities where hazards were observed and hazardous practices are engaged in, that risk analysis and management protocols need to be implemented.

Accessories in Private Law: Breach of equitable duties

Introduction Overview The principles governing accessory liability for breach of an equitable duty are to be found within the broader principles that govern third-party participatory liability in equity. This chapter sets out the principles of accessory liability within that broader context, including recipient liability. The law governing accessory liability specifically, and participatory liability generally, is confused in some respects and differs across jurisdictions. The confusion is attributable in part to the extraordinary influence of one nineteenth-century Court of Appeal in Chancery decision, Barnes v. Addy , and specifically, Lord Selborne LCs ex tempore leading judgment. Barnes v. Addy concerned claims against two solicitors who acted in relation to the appointment of a sole trustee to a testamentary trust. The beneficiaries sought redress against the solicitors for the trustees misappropriation of the trust fund. Lord Selborne was anxious to protect professional agents, particularly solicitors and bankers, acting honestly ‘as the agents of trustees in transactions within their legal powers’ and dismissed the beneficiaries’ appeals. His Lordship did not purport to change the law or to expound generally on the liability of third parties to breach of trust. Nonetheless, during the latter part of the twentieth century, his brief statement as to two exceptional circumstances in which agents of trustees would be liable for a trustees breach of trust transmogrified into an inflexible template for equitable participatory liability generally, regardless of whether the participant was an agent or not and irrespective of the nature of the participants conduct or the primary wrong in question. A distinction was drawn between participants who were involved in the primary wrong through knowingly receiving trust property and those who assisted in egregious breaches of trust (later extended to breach of fiduciary duty more generally) without necessarily receiving property. Little or no attention was paid to primary wrongs other than breach of trust and fiduciary duty. The so-called ‘two limbs’ of Barnes v. Addy were often applied in a formulaic and literal fashion. This need not have been so. In contrast to the jurisdictions focused upon in this chapter, the Barnes v. Addy template has not dominated the United States’ jurisprudence on the topic. In recent times, there has been a move away from the Barnes v. Addy template in most jurisdictions, but with mixed results. Broadly speaking, there are currently two frameworks used to determine participatory liability for breach of trust and fiduciary duty.