Do Stuntmen Assume the Risks Inherent in Their Work?
January 13, 2012 By Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie, Inc.
Call the Attorney at (866) 981-5596 
Free Consultation
Call the Attorney at (866) 981-5596 Free Consultation
Several large personal injury actions have been filed against celebrities and movie studios in California by stuntmen seeking damages for injuries incurred on the job, explains a lawyer in the state. The negligence lawsuits raise questions regarding whether the stuntmen assumed the risk of harm in a job known for its dangers.
Personal Injury Lawsuits by Stuntmen
Recently, several California celebrities and movie studios have been named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits, explains a lawyer in the state. The lawsuits are grounded in negligent tort laws and were brought by stuntmen who claim they suffered harm in the workplace for which they should be compensated.
A stuntman associated with a movie called The Hangover II recently brought a lawsuit against Warner Brothers, reported E! Online. In this claim, the plaintiff alleged that the stunt coordinator for the movie changed the sequence of a vehicle crash at the last minute, leading to a mishap that caused the stuntman to suffer permanent physical injuries and trauma to his brain that will require long-term care. E! Online also reported that the case was voluntarily dismissed, but that it was unclear whether the studio would be paying any of the costs or damages associated with the injury.
Another case, reported on Hollywood.com in 2006, was brought against Tom Cruises' production company and against Paramount Pictures. In that claim, the plaintiff indicated that a gasoline bomb exploded, causing him to suffer burns over approximately 60 percent of his body. The explosion was allegedly caused by the negligence of the production company.
Damages for those who make personal injury claims can include medical bills and costs, lost wages and income, pain and suffering and emotional distress, among other losses. In both of the personal injury claims brought by the stuntmen in California, the plaintiffs claimed they suffered a variety of actual damages compensable under the law, explains a lawyer. For instance, the plaintiff in the Mission Impossible case indicated that he had experienced pain and suffering. His spouse was also suing for loss of consortium, which is a type of damages suffered by the spouse of an injured victim who can no longer engage in normal marital relations a result of his injuries.
Assumption of the Risk
Even if the stuntmen were able to successfully prove negligence and damages resulting from it, the defendants in these cases would have the option to raise an affirmative defense. Affirmative defenses are arguments made by defendants that justify or excuse the allegedly wrongful behavior that would otherwise make them liable for injury. Self-defense is an example of an affirmative defense.
One affirmative defense that the defendants in these stuntman cases may raise is the assumption of the risk. An assumption of the risk defense is essentially an assertion that the plaintiff knowingly engaged in such dangerous behavior that he or she gave up the right to expect the other parties involved to provide a reasonable level of protection from harm. Essentially, an assumption of the risk defense says that it is clear the action was dangerous, you chose to do it anyway and you cannot now sue when you were hurt by your risky action.
Because assumption of the risk is an affirmative defense, the defendant movie studios and production companies will have the burden of proving that the defendant knowingly assumed the risk and was harmed by that particular risk. The stuntman may try to counter the argument by alleging that they did not assume the risk of a last-minute change of plans or a faulty explosion—i.e., that they did not assume the particular risk—but the fact remains that they are aware that there is the potential for accidents to happen in the stunt business. In fact, by definition, they are performing dangerous stunts. Unless the studios exposed them to a risk outside of what would be normal or customary in that particular line of work, it is unlikely that such a lawsuit would be successful for a defendant.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Jim Ballidis
For over 35 years, lawyer James Ballidis and the staff at Allen, Flatt, Ballidis, and Leslie have been helping the victims of accidents. During this time, he has written extensively on the personal injury claims process. If you are a California resident and would like to request a free book or article, feel free to call 866-981-5596.
Copyright Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie, Inc.
More information about Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie, Inc.
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
Recently, several California celebrities and movie studios have been named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits, explains a lawyer in the state. The lawsuits are grounded in negligent tort laws and were brought by stuntmen who claim they suffered harm in the workplace for which they should be compensated.
A stuntman associated with a movie called The Hangover II recently brought a lawsuit against Warner Brothers, reported E! Online. In this claim, the plaintiff alleged that the stunt coordinator for the movie changed the sequence of a vehicle crash at the last minute, leading to a mishap that caused the stuntman to suffer permanent physical injuries and trauma to his brain that will require long-term care. E! Online also reported that the case was voluntarily dismissed, but that it was unclear whether the studio would be paying any of the costs or damages associated with the injury.
Another case, reported on Hollywood.com in 2006, was brought against Tom Cruises' production company and against Paramount Pictures. In that claim, the plaintiff indicated that a gasoline bomb exploded, causing him to suffer burns over approximately 60 percent of his body. The explosion was allegedly caused by the negligence of the production company.
Damages for those who make personal injury claims can include medical bills and costs, lost wages and income, pain and suffering and emotional distress, among other losses. In both of the personal injury claims brought by the stuntmen in California, the plaintiffs claimed they suffered a variety of actual damages compensable under the law, explains a lawyer. For instance, the plaintiff in the Mission Impossible case indicated that he had experienced pain and suffering. His spouse was also suing for loss of consortium, which is a type of damages suffered by the spouse of an injured victim who can no longer engage in normal marital relations a result of his injuries.
Assumption of the Risk
Even if the stuntmen were able to successfully prove negligence and damages resulting from it, the defendants in these cases would have the option to raise an affirmative defense. Affirmative defenses are arguments made by defendants that justify or excuse the allegedly wrongful behavior that would otherwise make them liable for injury. Self-defense is an example of an affirmative defense.
One affirmative defense that the defendants in these stuntman cases may raise is the assumption of the risk. An assumption of the risk defense is essentially an assertion that the plaintiff knowingly engaged in such dangerous behavior that he or she gave up the right to expect the other parties involved to provide a reasonable level of protection from harm. Essentially, an assumption of the risk defense says that it is clear the action was dangerous, you chose to do it anyway and you cannot now sue when you were hurt by your risky action.
Because assumption of the risk is an affirmative defense, the defendant movie studios and production companies will have the burden of proving that the defendant knowingly assumed the risk and was harmed by that particular risk. The stuntman may try to counter the argument by alleging that they did not assume the risk of a last-minute change of plans or a faulty explosion—i.e., that they did not assume the particular risk—but the fact remains that they are aware that there is the potential for accidents to happen in the stunt business. In fact, by definition, they are performing dangerous stunts. Unless the studios exposed them to a risk outside of what would be normal or customary in that particular line of work, it is unlikely that such a lawsuit would be successful for a defendant.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Jim Ballidis
For over 35 years, lawyer James Ballidis and the staff at Allen, Flatt, Ballidis, and Leslie have been helping the victims of accidents. During this time, he has written extensively on the personal injury claims process. If you are a California resident and would like to request a free book or article, feel free to call 866-981-5596.
Copyright Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie, Inc.
More information about Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie, Inc.
View all articles published by Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie, Inc.
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
