Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Liability Rulings In Lawsuits Over Injuries on Sets

By Stan Soocher
March 01, 2004

Liability for personal injuries has long been a major concern for film and TV studios, given the history of injuries to crew members on production sets. Two courts recently issued rulings based on this concern.

In one case, the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate Division, District Seven, decided that Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. was a special employer immune from tort liability in an injury suit by a crew member of the “Roswell” TV series. Robert Clancey, who had hung drapes to conceal off-camera areas and helped with camera equipment lights and sets, filed an injury set alleging he developed lung disease due to exposure to fiberglass dust from damaged soundproofing materials on the “Roswell” set.

Fox had hired the TV show's crew through Entertainment Partners, a firm that the studio used for hiring and paying production personnel. Clancey claimed that he was an employee of Entertainment Partners, rather than Fox. But the court of appeal concluded, in an unpublished opinion, that Clancey was a special employee of Fox, which thus wasn't liable under the doctrine that workers' compensation is the sole remedy for general and special employees injured on the job. Clancey v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., B167685. Among the factors the court of appeal pointed to were that:

  • Fox had the right to control and direct Clancey's activities on the set;
  • Fox was ultimately responsible for the production and had the right to fire “Roswell” crew members;
  • Clancey had signed an agreement that described him as a “daily employee” of Fox;
  • Clancey had worked on the days Fox requested under conditions imposed by Fox; and
  • Fox had given Clancey the equipment and tools for his work on the set.

In the second case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied a motion by production-company defendants to allow them to compare the fault of an injured worker's employer. Cuiksa v. Hallmark Hall of Fame Productions Inc., 00-1389. Jason Cuiksa, a service technician employed by D&D Rental, was electrocuted on a production set while repairing a boom cart that struck a high voltage wire. Cuiksa filed suit alleging the production-company defendants had been negligent in parking the cart under the power line.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?