Cameo Clips

Artist Death/Record Company's Claim

A record company couldn't proceed with a negligence claim against a video production company for the death of its primary artist during a video shoot, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, decided. Barry & Sons Inc. v. Instinct Productions LLC, 4714. The artist Aaliyah signed an agreement with Blackground Records. Blackground entered into an agreement with Instinct Productions for production of the music video “Rock the Boat.” Aaliyah died in an airplane crash that Instinct chartered during video production. Aaliyah's parents filed a wrongful death action in California against Instinct that was later settled. Blackground then sued Instinct. The New York trial court dismissed Blackground's claim for a declaratory judgment of failure to perform the video production contract, but allowed Blackground to proceed with a claim that Instinct's negligence resulted in severe harm and loss to the record company.

Reversing on the negligence claim, the appellate court ordered dismissal of the complaint on the ground that this was in effect a wrongful death action. Wrongful death actions are generally statutory rights. Under N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law Sec. 5-4.1, such claims can only be brought by a personal representative of a decedent. The appellate court then reasoned: “The facile complaint allegation that Aaliyah was its primary asset does nothing to dispel the obvious ' that Blackground's claims assert nothing more than a wrongful death action. … Under Blackground's analysis, it is essentially asserting a claim for negligent interference with contractual relations, a theory of liability not recognized in New York.”

The court concluded: “Aaliyah's personal representatives, on behalf of her distributees (her parents) have, in fact, brought and settled the California death action. In settling that action, Aaliyah's distributees have been compensated for the damages resulting from her death. Permitting Blackground's claim would expose Instinct to the risk of paying the same damages a second time. And, if Blackground is allowed to recover for the wrongful death of Aaliyah, what is to prevent others who anticipated profits from the talents of Aaliyah from bringing a negligence action on account of her death?”

Circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish a question of fact as to whether a broadcasting company's conduct was a substantial factor in causing a fan to join a crowd chasing what they thought was celebrity Britney Spears and leading to the fan's death, the Supreme Court of New York, Broome County ' a trial court ' ruled. Santodonato v. Clear Channel Broadcasting, 2002-0695. A Clear Channel station announced that Spears would appear for an interview with a disc jockey. But the interview was pre-taped and it was a Spears impersonator who arrived at the station. Running with a crowd to a station side door to view what she thought was Spears, Susan Santodonato fell, hit her head and died from the injuries.

The trial court denied a defense motion to dismiss the negligence claim filed by Santodonato's estate. Acknowledging that the plaintiff had considerable proof and persuasion problems, the court noted that the key issue was “could a jury find that, more likely than not, the decedent's injury was caused by defendant's negligence rather than some other cause?” The court added: “As defendant rightly argues, a jury might conclude that the defendant reasonably could have assumed that the people in the crowd would be aware of the risks. … A jury, however, could also find that concocting a scenario involving such risks was unreasonable.”

The court continued: “No one, perhaps, could have predicted that a member of the crowd would trip, fall onto a garage door handle and suffer a fatal head injury. However, a fall in the dark as Susan ran down a grassy slope which ended with a curb of 2 or 3 inches in height bordering a paved surface hardly seems an extraordinary event. In order to preserve the causal link between defendant's act and the harm, it is not necessary that defendant foresee the precise intervening act. Its occurrence need only fall within the general category of reasonably anticipated consequences of defendant's actions.”

Artist Death/Record Company's Claim

A record company couldn't proceed with a negligence claim against a video production company for the death of its primary artist during a video shoot, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, decided. Barry & Sons Inc. v. Instinct Productions LLC, 4714. The artist Aaliyah signed an agreement with Blackground Records. Blackground entered into an agreement with Instinct Productions for production of the music video “Rock the Boat.” Aaliyah died in an airplane crash that Instinct chartered during video production. Aaliyah's parents filed a wrongful death action in California against Instinct that was later settled. Blackground then sued Instinct. The New York trial court dismissed Blackground's claim for a declaratory judgment of failure to perform the video production contract, but allowed Blackground to proceed with a claim that Instinct's negligence resulted in severe harm and loss to the record company.

Reversing on the negligence claim, the appellate court ordered dismissal of the complaint on the ground that this was in effect a wrongful death action. Wrongful death actions are generally statutory rights. Under N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law Sec. 5-4.1, such claims can only be brought by a personal representative of a decedent. The appellate court then reasoned: “The facile complaint allegation that Aaliyah was its primary asset does nothing to dispel the obvious ' that Blackground's claims assert nothing more than a wrongful death action. … Under Blackground's analysis, it is essentially asserting a claim for negligent interference with contractual relations, a theory of liability not recognized in New York.”

The court concluded: “Aaliyah's personal representatives, on behalf of her distributees (her parents) have, in fact, brought and settled the California death action. In settling that action, Aaliyah's distributees have been compensated for the damages resulting from her death. Permitting Blackground's claim would expose Instinct to the risk of paying the same damages a second time. And, if Blackground is allowed to recover for the wrongful death of Aaliyah, what is to prevent others who anticipated profits from the talents of Aaliyah from bringing a negligence action on account of her death?”

Circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish a question of fact as to whether a broadcasting company's conduct was a substantial factor in causing a fan to join a crowd chasing what they thought was celebrity Britney Spears and leading to the fan's death, the Supreme Court of New York, Broome County ' a trial court ' ruled. Santodonato v. Clear Channel Broadcasting, 2002-0695. A Clear Channel station announced that Spears would appear for an interview with a disc jockey. But the interview was pre-taped and it was a Spears impersonator who arrived at the station. Running with a crowd to a station side door to view what she thought was Spears, Susan Santodonato fell, hit her head and died from the injuries.

The trial court denied a defense motion to dismiss the negligence claim filed by Santodonato's estate. Acknowledging that the plaintiff had considerable proof and persuasion problems, the court noted that the key issue was “could a jury find that, more likely than not, the decedent's injury was caused by defendant's negligence rather than some other cause?” The court added: “As defendant rightly argues, a jury might conclude that the defendant reasonably could have assumed that the people in the crowd would be aware of the risks. … A jury, however, could also find that concocting a scenario involving such risks was unreasonable.”

The court continued: “No one, perhaps, could have predicted that a member of the crowd would trip, fall onto a garage door handle and suffer a fatal head injury. However, a fall in the dark as Susan ran down a grassy slope which ended with a curb of 2 or 3 inches in height bordering a paved surface hardly seems an extraordinary event. In order to preserve the causal link between defendant's act and the harm, it is not necessary that defendant foresee the precise intervening act. Its occurrence need only fall within the general category of reasonably anticipated consequences of defendant's actions.”