Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The trial over a death on the set of the Walking Dead zombie drama will hinge on one key question: What happened in the moments before a stuntman plunged off a balcony and missed an airbag 20 feet below.
Lawyers for the AMC television series and its producers argue the defendants are not to blame and that stuntman John Bernecker assumed the risk of his dangerous job. But lawyers for his parents, Susan and Hagen Bernecker, say something went wrong on that balcony. The Berneckers have sued AMC Networks and Stalwart Films. The wrongful death suit in Gwinnett County, GA, state court alleges that an actor who was supposed to fake shooting, then grabbing and pushing the stuntman off the balcony, instead made actual physical contact — which changed the trajectory of the fall. Bernecker v. Stalwart Films LLC, 18-C-00435-1
"Negligence on the stunt is the heart of the case," said Jeffrey Harris of Harris Lowry Manton in Savannah and Atlanta, who represents Susan Bernecker. "At the end of the day, it's going to be a straightforward question of whether the actor and the production company were negligent in the way they set up the stunt."
Harris represented the family of camera assistant Sarah Jones over her 2014 death while filming the movie Midnight Rider near Savannah. After years of litigation, the Jones family reached a confidential settlement with CSX Transportation in January. Jones v. Film Allman, STCV1400752 (Chatham County State Court). The undisclosed payment satisfied a $3.9 million judgment against the railroad resulting from apportionment of a 2017 verdict totaling $11.2 million. It concluded the case against the last of a series of defendants involved in the train crash on the set of a movie about musician Gregg Allman.
The Walking Dead trial was set to open Dec. 9 before Judge Emily Brantley.
AMC and Stalwart are represented by Jackson Dial, David Dial and Joshua Wood of Weinberg Wheeler Hudgins Gunn & Dial.
The judge has already denied a series of pre-trial defense motions to throw out the lawsuit and a key expert witness whose testimony will support the plaintiff's theory of the case. "Defendants argue that Bernecker was an experienced stunt man and that he knew what he was doing and had been hurt on stunts many times before," Judge Brantley said in her order denying the company's motion to dismiss. "In other words, Bernecker knew the risk of his profession and voluntarily engaged in this act — even assuming the risk that another actor's negligence in touching him and possibly affecting the trajectory of his fall could occur. The court does not agree."
*****
Katheryn Hayes Tucker is an Atlanta-based reporter covering legal news for the Daily Report and other ALM publications.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.
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 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.
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?