Defense Verdict for "Black Dog" Suit
April 1, 2002
On February 28, 2002 after trial, in "Skinner, et al vs. Rafaella, Inc., et al", a personnel inquiry case involving the entertainment industry tried in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Central District, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. Specifically, the jury found that plaintiffs Anthony Bradley and Ronald Skinner were employees of defendant Black Dog Productions, Inc. ("BDPI"), and were co-employees of defendants Rafaella Delaurentiis, Hester Hargett and Peter Saphier. This finding rendered each of the four defendants immune from tort liability under the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers Compensation Act.
This personal injury case arose out of a January 6, 1998 explosion in Wilmington, NC on the second unit of the production of the motion picture "Black Dog." Mr. Bradley and Mr. Skinner were setting up a special effect sequence, wherein it would appear that an explosion would turn over a flatbed truck. The pyrotechnics consisted of approximately two gallons of gasoline in a plastic bottle, wrapped in primer cord and placed inside a cardboard mock-up of side-saddle gasoline tank.
In reality, an air ram located just to the rear of the truck cab was designed to drive a wooden post into the ground, at the moment that the explosion went off. The ram, not the explosion, was to in fact turn the truck on its side.
Unfortunately, as Mr. Bradley and Mr. Skinner were working just feet from the gasoline, setting up the "gag" minutes before the filming was to take place, the pyrotechnics detonated prematurely severely burning both men.
BDPI, DeLaurentiis, Hargett and Saphier answered the complaint and pled the affirmative defense of the use of workers compensation as the "exclusive remedy" for the plaintiffs. They argued that the plaintiffs were the "special" or borrowed employees of BDPI, and were the "general employees" of Entertainment partners/PixPay, an entertainment industry payroll services company. DeLaurentiis, Hargett and Saphier, pled that they were the co-employees of the plaintiffs and argued along with BDPI that the plaintiffs were injured during the course and scope of their employment.
Because that issue was dispositive as to them, the defense was able to successfully argue that trial should be bifurcated so that the issue of plaintiff's employment would be tried first, with the burden of proof resting with the defendants.
At trial, the defense was able to demonstrate through witness testimony that the defendants had the right to control, and that the plaintiffs accepted control from the defendants and their agents, over the details of the plaintiff's work. This was shown to be the custom and practice in the industry. Also, the defense demonstrated that through documentary evidence consisting of W-2's, time cards, pay stubs, union contracts, crew "deal memos" and employment "start/close forms" that the plaintiffs had agreed to be employees.
Christopher Overton of Murchison & Cumming in Los Angeles, was co-trial counsel for BDPI, DeLaurentiis, Hargett and Saphier, along with Michael B. Lawler and Michael J. Nunez. The plaintiffs were represented by Browne Greene, Esq. and Frank O'Kane, Esq. of Greene, Briollet, Panish & Wheeler.
