Cast member attacks Plaintiff during filming
Personal Injury - Vicarious Liability
Personal Injury - Spine Injury
Los Angeles County Superior Court
Plaintiff was serving as a kind of "extra" during the filming of a promotional shoot for an upcoming film. While participating in the shoot, Plaintiff was tackled by an extremely intoxicated cast member, suffering severe spinal injuries.

Plaintiff was a member of the audience set to watch a promotional panel for an upcoming film.  The audience was invited to participate in the shoot by asking the cast members questions from a podium set below the stage.  Plaintiff was selected to go to the podium and ask the cast members a question.  When she did so, one of the cast members, who was extremely intoxicated, got up from his seat and jumped from the stage and down to the podium, tackling the Paintiff to the ground.  As a result of the collision, Plaintiff suffered both neck and lower back disc herniations that required surgery.

Defendant claimed a sub-contractor production company was actually responsible for the filming that day, and that did not directly supply the alcohol to the cast.  Further, Defendant contended that it had no knowledge of the events that day and could not have anticipated what would occur.  Defendant also claimed that the cervical spine surgery was not necessary as evidenced by the complications and residuals Plaintiff still suffered from, and that the lumbar procedure was unrelated to the accident trauma as Plaintiff had prior back problems.

Plaintiff contended that the Defendant broadcast company was ultimately responsible for the acts of the heavily intoxicated cast member.  In discovery, Plaintiff uncovered the fact that the broadcast company's contractor had provided the cast with 166 beers immediately prior to the promotional shoot, in the hopes that the cast members would get "loose" and "do something crazy."  This was particularly foreseeable to the Defendant given that the nature of the film and show often involved outrageous physical stunts intended to the shock the audience.  Plaintiff established that Defendant could not avoid liability merely by using a sub-contractor when the Defendant had the ultimate control over the filming.