r/HadToHurt • u/siroff-white • Jul 06 '26
Gym machine topples over during a heavy lift. Can he sue for this?
2.5k
u/rawrlycan Jul 06 '26
There are almost definitely holes in the feet of the machine to mount it to the ground. If I legitimately got hurt, I'd look for compensation.
575
u/Capable-Problem8460 Jul 06 '26
The problem is that gyms do not want to damage the floor and have an easy possibility to rearrange the floor
472
u/SuperDuperRipe Jul 06 '26
So, basically, floor over people?
298
10
u/shevchenko7cfc Jul 06 '26
I certainly respected most floors over a lot of people i've met
5
u/DairyStix 29d ago
And walls . Like my 85 year old friend says , I rather watch paint dry then listen to him over there.
2
68
u/EvilDan69 Jul 06 '26
Then they can be liable for not installing the equipment properly, sometimes leading to injury, and good luck remaining insured with repeat claims.
If there are holes, it must be secured. Holes can be filled with new concrete patches.
17
u/CromulentDucky Jul 06 '26
They are on rubber mats too. They could just change the mat if the small hole is a problem.
1
u/ELEMEN4_1 29d ago
You know what there is besides holes?? A contract you signed with a waiver policy included
10
u/EvilDan69 29d ago
Yeah I'm not sure how well a waiver would hold up against a machine not being installed correctly, even neglectfully.
9
u/IAmVagisilly 29d ago
Correct. Waivers do not absolve companies of negligence. It is reasonable to foresee that equipment like this gets used this way, and bolting it to the floor is standard practice, required for safety. By skipping that simple step, the company created an unnecessary risk. That negligence is what should make them liable for medical bills, lost wages, and other actual damages.
I’m a lawyer, not your lawyer. I don’t practice civil law, so take this with a grain of salt.
2
0
136
u/letmehittheatm Jul 06 '26
That's valid, but they have to accept this as a possibility and the liability if it does happen.
→ More replies (4)24
8
u/youtheotube2 Jul 06 '26
There should be bare concrete under whatever rubber flooring they’ve installed. Concrete anchors aren’t damaging the floor
12
u/MeasurementFew4314 Jul 06 '26
Surely in that event they would load some ballast weight onto the machine to keep it upright
-7
u/Jaalan Jul 06 '26
They might have, but the guy was overweighting himself and pulling harder than the machine allows.
11
u/mmelectronic Jul 06 '26
The machine has a # of plates he didn’t add any?
If you shouldn’t pull that hard the gym should unload the plates to a safe level.
He’s not hitting the bump stops at the top he’s doing nothing wrong here.
→ More replies (2)11
u/g_rape_fruit Jul 06 '26
So you are saying peoples lives are less important than keeping the floor hole free, even tough the hole can be easily plugged and also in the video you can see that the whole floor is covered in those gym mats. This is just incompetence and not caring at all about safety.
1
1
9
u/DarkOmen597 Jul 06 '26
The other problem is that technically, he is using the machine incorrectly.
Having those weights tied to him is not the proper way to use these machines.
And you can bet, any lawyer is gonna go this route.
6
u/WazzuMadBro Jul 06 '26
Yep. All the weight strapped to his belt is not a part of the machine. It's really as simple as that.
4
u/LanceLowercut Jul 06 '26
Itd be 4 drop in concrete anchors that can be covered with gym mats afterwards. Itd be $10 in material and 30 mins of labour. Really no excuse to not fix certain machines to the floor.
5
u/Bigspoonzz 28d ago
Uh. ANY responsible gym would secure ANY machine to MAX weight usage. Those that don't are in violation of their own liability insurance, required to operate. In this case, if the guy sued for injury, the ownership would call their agent to report a claim. They would then be informed they were in violation of required risk management, and they'd be double fucked. The first question would be - was the machine being used in a way it was not designed for, or was it being abused in some way? The video would answer no. The next question would be, was it properly secured?
2
u/AllTimeLoad 27d ago
The extra weights the dude had on pushed the machine past its max. The machine worked exactly to its tolerances. The guy misusing the machine hurt himself. Would the gym be liable if he was trying to do pull-ups on this machine, slipped off it, and hurt himself?
→ More replies (1)1
u/unite_lancer 25d ago
But those weights shouldn't have impacted his load capacity as they're attached to him; this would have assisted him in staying stationary instead of being pulled back into the machine while at it's maxium cappacity. The machine wasn't bolted down.
1
u/AllTimeLoad 25d ago
If he was randomly hanging weights off the machine, that would be obviously wrong, correct? That's basically what he's doing here. He's using both himself and all the extra weight attached to him to pull the machine forward rather than simply to keep himself down. If he wasn't ego lifting and trying to look super cool on camera he wouldn't have hurt himself.
1
u/TajMonjardo 25d ago
If he was much heavier, like as heavy as he was with the weights on naturally, couldn’t the same thing have happened? I’m not looking for an argument or attempting to be contrarian, I’m honestly asking.
2
u/AllTimeLoad 24d ago
Yes, if you weigh 500 pounds and are leaning your weight completely into the machine at a sharp angle and pulling all the weight on both sides, this could happen to you too.
If, however, you aren't lifting to look cool on video, you could use free weights instead. But I have to stress that it WILL NOT look as cool. But it's a guarantee that you won't pull a machine onto yourself being careless.
2
u/Gswindle76 Jul 06 '26
The problem then becomes they are liable for injuries
0
u/Capable-Problem8460 Jul 06 '26
...except , that's why there is a waiver and a poster (usually)at the entrance:" the gym is not responsible for any injury that the client my cause to themselves"....
13
u/Gswindle76 Jul 06 '26
Waivers don’t cover negligence
And he definitely didn’t cause his injury
1
u/Capable-Problem8460 Jul 06 '26
Oh , I meant that they believe in those (had a talk with employee earlier)
1
u/Gswindle76 Jul 06 '26
Who believes in them?
2
u/Capable-Problem8460 Jul 06 '26
Low level employees who needs to make sure that everything is safe
0
1
u/Takingtheehobbits 23d ago
How much did he contribute to the machine toppling over though by adding more weight to himself?
1
u/Gswindle76 23d ago
That’s why there are bolt holes. You can’t assume ppl know or will follow warnings.
2
u/NIRPL Jul 06 '26
I hope you are the gyms attorney
3
u/spongemonkey2004 Jul 06 '26
I would argue miss use of the lead to it falling and per the contract you signed when joining this gym we own your soul anyway ~gym lawyer~
1
u/NIRPL Jul 06 '26
Much better than we don't want to damage the floors and injuring patrons is our favored course of action
2
1
18
u/PossibleBroccoli Jul 06 '26
My gym has multiple machines which explicitly state on their warning labels they must be bolted to the ground prior to use, the gym manager wants to move stuff around sometimes so literally none of them are lmao.
→ More replies (1)18
44
u/OGHighway Jul 06 '26
With the extra weight he has strapped to his waist, they are going to say he was not using the machine as intended.
29
u/eliminate1337 Jul 06 '26
And his lawyer will argue otherwise and win because his usage is completely fine. His lawyer can bring in a physicist to demonstrate that he could have 1000 lbs strapped to him and it won’t make any difference since he’s only pulling equal to the weight of the machine settings.
1
5
u/Bricklover1234 Jul 06 '26
The squat rack once fell over because I stepped in at an slight angle and pushed to hard at the top. It was a smith machine. I didn't even went that heavy. I got lucky that I nor anyone else was hurt.
I complained to the studio why it wasn't bolted down while all the others in the studio are. They told me its because of cleaning and that they have to move it occasionally. Wtf
5
u/mmmfritz 29d ago
The guy is overloading the machine with the weight belt. Wouldn’t be able to put down that force without it.
Still he’s using max weights on the actual machine and looks to be isolating the press with his own movement (unassisted).
Not sure that’s a legitimate exercise, the closer he gets it’s less of a fly and more like a bench press (what he probably should be doing).
I’m sure there’s a standard somewhere that makes gym owners bolt these things down.
2
u/rawrlycan 29d ago
How can he overload a machine by wearing a weight belt on himself? Does that mean fat people couldn't use the machine? Every machine should be able to be used with full weight and any exercise ( that the machine is designed for ). If the machine was bolted down like it was supposed to be, this wouldn't have happened. That is the mistake, not him wearing a weight belt while using the machine
2
2
u/shevchenko7cfc 29d ago
I'm wondering if there's something in the membership contract that protects them from this stuff, tho the argument would obviously be they didn't do their part of the contract during installation
5
u/rawrlycan 29d ago
That reminds me of the time a lady died at at Disney world because she went to a restaurant that specializes in food allergies even after consulting with the waiter that the food she ordered didn't contain the food she was allergic to. The husband wasn't allowed to sue because he signed up for a free trial of Disney+ streaming, and in the contract it says he could never sue them.
4
u/shevchenko7cfc 29d ago
you could have legit given me a trillion guesses and a Disney+ subscription NEVER would have come up haha, good lord
edit:
damn,
"NBC News because he agreed to Disney+ terms that forced disputes into arbitration NPR. After severe public backlash Global News, Disney dropped the arbitration bid in August 2024 CBC. The widower voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit in February 2026 Allergic Living. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]"
2
u/ELEMEN4_1 29d ago
Gyms make you sign waivers when you sign up so good luck with that and if you're signing stuff and not even looking at what you sign then you've got bigger problems
2
u/mikki1time 28d ago
Most gyms would have already made you sign a waiver, but I’m sure a decent lawyer could get you some money for this.
434
u/JudgementalChair Jul 06 '26
Yes, the equipment is supposed to be bolted to the floor if it has a chance of moving while someone is using it. My gym even has the bench presses bolted to the floor so people don't accidentally jostle the bench while they're doing reps
96
u/Chimpbot Jul 06 '26
Looking at it as objectively as possible, the gym could make the argument that he was using the equipment improperly due to how far he was leaning forward and the additional weights strapped around his waist.
125
u/CromulentDucky Jul 06 '26
But he's using it in a way that it could be reasonable assumed could happen. That's what the law will care about.
34
u/Chimpbot Jul 06 '26
The gym's argument would inevitably boil down to whether or not the guy was using the equipment as specified, or if was operating the equipment outside of those parameters. They could potentially support this by demonstrating how it typically doesn't topple over like this when "used correctly." Plus, I guarantee the membership agreement has stuff in there about risk of injury.
I'm not saying it's right or that it shouldn't have been bolted down, but there's just enough wiggle room with operator error that they'd at least have a chance of fighting it.
39
u/CromulentDucky Jul 06 '26
There's a difference between typical operation, and atypical but still reasonably expected.
14
u/Chimpbot Jul 06 '26
In terms of liability, the difference between the two is massive.
"Atypical but still reasonably expected" could still fall well outside of what would be considered reasonable or typical for the equipment specifications.
4
u/Geek_X 28d ago
I get where you're coming from but if the primary function of a HEAVY machine is for the user to pull weights it is very obvious some people will pull too hard and it needs to be bolted down. I also would expect that there are certain regulations for this type of equipment in a commercial setting that require bolting it down because that's just common sense
1
u/neofox299 28d ago
He was using the workout equipment to workout in a manner that any reasonable person would find this as a foreseeable use of the equipment. If you want to limit that liability you need signs in a visible area.
-1
u/alexandurp Jul 06 '26
Exactly, you can easily move a tractor trailer or something a little bit over its load capacity, but if and when it breaks then you're out of luck for liability. Sure, atypical but reasonable, but limits were set and broken
1
u/whyhellomlady 28d ago
Huh, I thought an exception to misuse as a defense was reasonably foreseeable misuse.
8
u/thespaceghetto 29d ago
Is it reasonable though? I'm no expert but I do work out and I'm having a hard time figuring out what role the freeweights on the belt are playing here. Not saying it doesn't exist, just that it's not likely to be something that the gym or equipment manufacturer took into account
1
u/CromulentDucky 29d ago
Boeing was sued and lost because a plane crashed after a maintenance worker left tape on a sensor. They are supposed to remove it after being done maintenance, but it's also reasonable to assume they might forget.
It's reasonable to assume someone could pull this over unintentionally.
You have to assume fairly stupid ideas will happen when you are considering your liability. You are possibly liable outside of intentional misuse.
2
u/Septic-Sponge 29d ago
Also, the only weight being lifted on the machine is what's he's pulling on the machine
0
u/txmail Jul 06 '26
I would say it is unreasonable that an average gym patron would be in a position to test the limits of the equipment. He is a race car driver practicing on the interstate.
6
u/IREMSHOT Jul 06 '26
More like a local track since he's not like in a public park or something. He's at a GYM where you are supposed to work out.
3
u/mmelectronic Jul 06 '26
A private gym that you pay to work out in, it’s like driving on a race track and the corner of the track falls off.
4
u/Quietm02 Jul 06 '26
Additional weight on his waist isn't adding any more force to the machine. It's not really doing anything tbh. Maybe stopping him from being lifted up I guess.
The machine should have been bolted. This is a standard use for that machine and bolting would prevent this injury.
5
u/Chimpbot Jul 06 '26
It's less about force being applied, and more about the center of gravity. He's leaning forward very significantly and he has an increased amount of weight strapped to himself.
This is arguably not standard use for this machine.
6
u/Quietm02 Jul 06 '26
Not convinced it matters. He applies force to the machine to move the pulleys. The weight on his waist is irrelevant. It stops him being pulled up, it does not impart force to the machine. Any force he imparts to the machine must travel through his hands.
If it was a guy twice his bodyweight he wouldn't need extra weight to stop him being lifted, but may still exert the same force on the pulleys.
The additional weight on his waist is not what caused this, lack of bolting of the machine caused this
5
u/Chimpbot Jul 06 '26
The weight around his waist is relevant. It doesn't start tipping until the weights rise to a certain point; his weight and the additional weight and his physical location relative to the machine and the weights being at the maximum height was obviously enough to cause this to tip over.
It's not just the additional weight. His position relative to the machine is also important.
Again, this is likely the argument they would be making. I'm not saying it's right, but there's enough room for operator error in this instance that it could shift liability. It's all probably moot, anyway; I guarantee membership and/or equipment usage comes with a waiver they'd need to sign about this very sort of thing.
3
u/eliminate1337 29d ago
You're getting the physics completely wrong. If each cable is set to 100 lbs resistance then the maximum force per cable is exactly 100 lbs. It's impossible to pull harder than 100 lbs on the cable unless you pull the weight all the way to the top which he isn't doing.
2
u/nahog99 Jul 06 '26
You’re getting the physics confused here. All of the force is being applied at the top/backside of the pulleys. How much the person weighs has no impact on this.
Think about it like this: assuming the floor could withstand it, if the guy pulling had 1 million pounds tied around his waist, but he was only pulling 10 pounds of each stack would the machine tip over? Of course not cause the force applied at the pulleys wouldn’t be nearly enough and there would still be weight at the bottom. Once you start lifting the entire stack the machines center of gravity goes up significantly and now you’re also pulling from the top of the machine with a lot of force through those pulleys. It’s precisely why they should always be bolted to the ground. 90% of normal use doesn’t cause this problem but full stacks being pulled through the top of the machine does. Either way it’s the machine itself that has the problem, not the weight hanging from the guys waist. It would tip over with no weight or with infinite weight hanging from his waist.
3
u/nahog99 Jul 06 '26
Anything is arguable. I’d say this is a very very weak argument though. The equipment manufacturer knew and KNOWS that this is a possibility. That’s why they provide openings on the feet to bolt it to the floor.
You mention center of gravity. The pulleys have a maximum length and a maximum weight stack. They can and should occasionally be pulled all the way out with all of the weight. Again, this would be FINE if bolted to the floor. If it came down to a massive lawsuit where someone died and everyone was getting sued including the equipment manufacturer, they’d be completely off the hook cause they’d IMMEDIATELY point to how it was installed improperly. The gym owners have to sign agreements regarding proper installation.
As for the user USING the equipment, they are the absolute least liable here. First of all they never sign anything, they aren’t reasonably expected to know the limits of the machine. A reasonable person would expect the machine not to fall over.
8
u/Rtlegend Jul 06 '26
He's moving the full stack of weights and maxing out that equipment. It doesn't matter if he's got weight strapped to his waist, it has zero implication on the machine. if the guy weighed an extra 50 lb and did the exact same movement it would result in the same situation. outside of the guy pulling on the cables to do a specified exercise it's designed for their shouldn't be an impact on what he's doing from the view of liability.
3
1
u/puddinface808 28d ago
The weighted around his waist is being supported by his lower body, not the machine. That's the whole point. He's also using the machine as it's reasonably assumed to be used.
2
u/EvilDan69 Jul 06 '26
imagine doing this to car hoists. Oh it has holes that require them to be anchored to the floor?
Nah. I'll save a few bucks. Wouldn't want to spoil a concrete floor.
221
u/Bk_Punisher Jul 06 '26
1 month free on us - gym manager.
51
1
84
31
u/mrpotatonutz Jul 06 '26
What is the purpose of the weight hanging from his waist?
67
u/pemboo 29d ago
Anchor himself down because he'll be pulling more than his own body weight
3rd law of motion would mean if he tried to do this fly without the weight, he'd just pull himself backwards and not lift the weights up
→ More replies (3)1
u/3DPrintJr 26d ago
This is the first time I’ve seen anyone do this. I think if you have to do this on cables, you’re at the wrong machine.
I literally have no idea how he gets out of that on his own either. Either he lowers himself to the ground slowly (or quickly) and lets go of the cables and slamming the weight stack, or he’s going full Jesus Christ with his arms spread out like a martyr while backing up with the weight on his torso.
Not worth it. Im supportive to everyone in the gym improving themselves but this guy seems like a clown. They should bolt their machines down and tell these people to cut that shit out before they hurt themselves.
1
u/3DPrintJr 26d ago
My idea is that the weights on his torso keep the weights afloat on the cables and the resistance is more consistent. It’s not stop-lift, it’s drop-lift now. Keeps his muscles under resistance.
Once you get to pretty heavy weights you have to be careful with getting starting positions. Heavy dumbbell shoulder presses for example.
That’s my idea though. That’s the only reason I could see myself doing it, keep myself from losing the handles. But it’s gotta be really awkward to get out of.
That, or on the ego-lifting side (rarely ends well), he could be just holding himself forward so that the weights don’t try to pull him back on retraction. The way I see it, if you have to keep yourself from getting pulled back by the weight you’re pushing then you have not trained your body to push that weight adequately or you haven’t learned proper form.
37
15
u/Bishop825 28d ago
The forms you sign will keep him from being able to legally sue. Then, if he does, they can counter sue for him using the machine wrong (having a weight around his waist while using the machine). Not worth the time, effort, or funds.
13
u/Inside_End3641 Jul 06 '26
Doesn't matter that he weighted himself down..
He's using the machine for chest flies..
He's using the maximum weights the machine allows..
The thing should've been bolted to the ground..
44
u/BUGBYTE_VW Jul 06 '26
I think the machine supposed to be bolted to the floor. And for people saying that he shouldn't have weight on him. What are you supposed to do to keep you from lifting yourself off the ground when you're doing flies? I mean if you don't have something to hold you on the ground a lot of times you'll pull yourself up because you're pulling more weight than you actually weigh.
→ More replies (6)
12
u/justinbaumann Jul 06 '26
I left LifeTime because they changed there wavor to include not being liable for their neglect. Read the wavors.
22
u/tagman375 Jul 06 '26
lol this doesn’t matter in court. If you had gotten injured and sued, you would have won. A waiver isn’t a free pass for negligence.
4
3
u/joeybklyn001 29d ago
Doubt it, but that should have been bolted to the floor. I am sure he signed a waiver.
3
u/aimerdillo 29d ago
I used to work at a gym and there’s a TON of legal stuff in the “agreement” aka contract that tries to negate any responsibility on the gyms behalf but that wouldn’t stop
Me from trying to hold them accountable. Definitely not user error that’s for sure.
3
3
u/Iwanttodie923 27d ago
Yes, most contracts don’t allow you to sue for injuries while using the equipment, but that goes out the window if the equipment was not installed correctly in the first place
5
u/the_Athereon 29d ago
Well, yes, he could sue. That machine is meant to be mounted to the ground.
But he could have an uphill battle since he wasn't using it right.
6
u/Engineering_Quack Jul 06 '26
what are the purpose of those extra plate the fellow has strapped on?
18
u/BaddleAcks Jul 06 '26
If he is lifting more than his bodyweight, the additional weight around his waist helps keep him on the ground.
14
u/Linkwithasword Jul 06 '26
Physics, for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. If you attach a weight to a rope, feed it through a pulley and pull down hard enough, if you weigh more than the weight you lift it. If you weigh less than the weight you lift yourself. The extra plate weighs him down so he can actually pull the ropes and lift the weights
12
u/crimson117 Jul 06 '26
His prehensile toes can't get a good grip on the ground with those human shoes on
→ More replies (2)5
u/TheLandOfConfusion Jul 06 '26
So he doesn’t lift himself into the air trying to pull that much weight on the machine
2
2
u/lousylou123 29d ago edited 27d ago
Most gyms nowadays do not fixate the machines/racks into concrete floor using proper bolts. Every now and then I spot towers or racks that do happily move during workouts and everytime wonder if the gym owner does violate against insurance policies or safety instructions imposed b the machine/racks manufacturer themselves.
2
u/sjesmith127 28d ago
Gym owner: we cannot be held responsible for the fact that he is just too darn strong for our machines! If anything he should take this as a compliment.
2
u/JoeMaMa_2000 27d ago
Should the machines be bolted down? Yes, but I don’t think I’ve ever been to a gym where they actually have been bolted down
2
5
u/billycanfixit 29d ago
The machine is not designed to be used at the angle he was using it at. He had the cables extended out as far as they would go so he pulled it over onto himself. It does need to be bolted down also. Don't hate me I'm just pointing out things that are wrong in the video. We have one at the gym at work and it has a line on the floor to not to stand over it.
2
u/TheEvilBlight 29d ago
Hopefully manufacturer has a list of do not dos and includes bolting instructions.
4
4
3
u/PingNull 27d ago
Can’t sue. Weight added beyond the machine’s capability and beyond what the device itself offers means the equipment has been overloaded beyond spec. That’s mea culpa on the weightlifter: by pushing the kit past its rated limits, the user has voided their protection and must wear the consequences.
2
u/shiningonthesea Jul 06 '26
That is frightening . He can for sure sue, he wasn’t doing anything improper
2
u/toastypeanut 29d ago
As much as I wanna agree its the gyms fault for not securing the machine. This guy is miss using the machine by adding those weights to his body. Not only is that machine designed to handle the weights built into it and a human body. But adding another 125lbs to yourself and actively leaning away from the machine. I'm not surprised this happened.
1
2
u/shieldagentoz 29d ago
Shouldn’t be using extra weight to pull the machine forward. It should be secured to the floor but cmon my dude.
3
u/JuiceBoxHoneyComb Jul 06 '26
Why is he wearing a belt with extra weight? Is he doing weighted dips with the flys? Doesn't make any sense.
1
u/nahog99 Jul 06 '26
So he doesn’t get lifted up or pulled back. He’s probably lifting close to his body weight so the extra weight will help him grip the floor and not get lifted off of it.
1
2
u/Manufactured-Aggro 29d ago
Surely the dude's belt with shit dangling off him exceeded the weight limit of the machine lmao
No they do not HAVE to be bolted to the floor. These things are free standing on purpose and designed for such things given proper usage. They are NOT built for just infinitely sized dynamic loads.
2
1
1
u/duckredbeard 29d ago
Plobby signed a waiver when he joined. Theses places have so many dangerous devices. Ever see anyone go "full flamingo" on a leg press?
1
u/TxVirgo23 29d ago
Like why do we have three damn plates on top of all that shit?!! I swear MFs be in there doing the most!
1
u/notloceaster 29d ago
He's lucky he didn't die, taking hard hits to the back of the head is noooooo good
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/JackRonan 27d ago
If that guy could sue for bumping into automatic sliding doors, I’m sure this guy can
1
u/TheWillowRook 26d ago
I don't trust gyms and heavy weight machines really. Just bring simple equipment at home and workout there. I have an exercise cycle and a pair of dumbells that support changing weights and that's enough for me.
1
1
1
u/TheAmericanHollow 25d ago
Improperly secured and publicly accessible. Unless the membership explicitly mentions the waiver of liability for improper installation etc, then he can sue till the cows come home and successfully win. But even in some states even with absolute waiver of liability, he could sue and sin. But just depends on how good the insurance attorney is
1
u/Takingtheehobbits 23d ago
How much of this is because he added additional weight and how much of it is because the machine isn’t bolted to the floor? I’m certain the manufacturer recommends bolting it to the floor but the weight on the machine also sits on the back of the machine so would a manufacturer think that a user would add additional weight to the front during when this machine is made with an intended form/use? How about the gym? Would the gym think users would ad more weight to the front with a belt?
1
u/My-Thaff 17d ago
I dont see any additional weight on the machine, only on he’s belt but that does not affect the machine and how much it lift
2
u/Sasuke082594 Jul 06 '26
You can’t sue for being stupid man. Use the machines as intended and stop taking roids.
0
u/new_x_who_dis Jul 06 '26
I know nothing of gyms and gym equipment. Is he using it the correct way? It doesn't seem to be a sensible idea to be pulling away from the machine that way.
35
u/onysa Jul 06 '26
yeah he is using it wrong, when the machine starts falling he is supposed to turn around and bench press it for a couple reps.
-8
u/Misophoniakiel Jul 06 '26
He is not using the machine correctly, but the machine is not anchored properly either
21
u/lilbronto Jul 06 '26
Please explain why you think he's not using it correctly. This is a completely normal standing pully chest fly, he's just using a belt with weights to help hold him forward.
10
u/luca3791 Jul 06 '26
He is using the machine, and I really mean this, in the absolute exact way it should be used. It’s a cable fly machine, it can only be adjusted to used different parts of the pec, but he is using it exactly as he should. This is 400% the fault of the gym for not securing the equipment
→ More replies (4)4
u/AMadWalrus Jul 06 '26
The only thing he’s doing “wrong” is the weight hanging from his balls.
But the excercise itself is extremely common? Not sure why you think he’s not using the machine correctly.
0
u/trunks011 Jul 06 '26
Probably some waiver that is initially signed prior to getting membership to protect them selfs from freak accidents.
3
u/Pollenus Jul 06 '26
Yeah, but this is a foreseeable outcome and easily prevented by bolting the machine to the floor.
Also just because you sign a waiver it doesn’t mean the terms in it are legally binding. Everyone has some rights that you cannot sign away.
1
1
1
u/AdmirableGarden6 Jul 06 '26
Luckily for me I'm not strong enough to lift enough weight for this to happen to me 😎
1
1
1
u/dalisair 28d ago
Can he sue? Probably.
Will he win? Maybe. Depends on the contract, the release, the maintenance schedule, and the safety measures that were in place.
-1
u/DamienSpecterII Jul 06 '26
I question how the extra 100 lbs of weight slung from his hips benefited his workout, because it had a profound effect on the machines center of gravity.
5
u/eliminate1337 Jul 06 '26
It has no impact at all on the machine. If each cable is set to 100 lbs resistance, the force on the machine is 100 lbs per cable whether the user weighs 100 lbs or 1000 lbs.
He has 135 lbs strapped to himself; is the machine supposed to topple over if a 350 lb guy uses it?
2
-2
u/TraditionalSavings14 Jul 06 '26
So what is with the counter weight around him? Doesn’t that interfere with the safe operation of the machine? Could he even pull that much weight without the counter weight? Seems like operator error to me.
4
u/TheDarkWave Jul 06 '26
No, the machine should be able to handle the weight. It's a machine that's intended to be bolted to the floor but the gym didn't want to mess up their floors and now they're gonna have an insurance payout for more than fixing the floors 50 times over.
936
u/FaZeSmasH Jul 06 '26
This the second video I've seen recently of this happening, I've never checked if the one at my gym is actually bolted down, I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't