Alec Baldwin

[cremetangerine82]

More lawsuits...

Three “Rust” crew members sued Alec Baldwin and the film’s producers on Monday, alleging they have suffered anxiety and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the shooting death of the film’s cinematographer.

The three crew members were in the church building at the Bonanza Creek Ranch near Santa Fe, N.M., when Baldwin’s gun fired, striking cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and director Joel Souza. Baldwin has denied pulling the trigger, though prosecutors have charged him with involuntarily manslaughter for allegedly firing the weapon while it was pointed at Hutchins.

[Ginger]

I don't think that witnessing an accident is lawsuit material, but then I remember how Alec went on TV and denounced the crew for various reasons (for complaining about safety, for being greedy) and I think yeah, I'm ok with him having to fight that out in court.

[cremetangerine82]

Mar 1, 2023 10:53:04 GMT -4 Ginger said:

I don't think that witnessing an accident is lawsuit material, but then I remember how Alec went on TV and denounced the crew for various reasons (for complaining about safety, for being greedy) and I think yeah, I'm ok with him having to fight that out in court.

I believe the crew members have a case against Baldwin for causing PTSD. Think about it: an accident goes wrong, two crew members got shot, and Halyna didn't survive. If they both witnessed the accident (blood, cried of pain, panic in the aftermath, insomnia due to re-living the traumatic event, etc.) and saw someone die, this is grounds for suing for emotional distress. If they were trying to sue over a minor failed stunt with no causalities, that would be excessive and any civil court would throw that out. They witnessed a co-worker (and possibly friend) die. I agree that they should sue Baldwin blaming their "incompetence" and "greed" (defamation of character).

[seat6]

I've seen a few dead bodies and the sight has stayed with me. Two were of natural causes and one was from an accident. I didn't see the people die but shortly afterwards.

I wasn't traumatized by seeing the woman lying dead in the middle of the road but I was certainly disturbed. She didn't have any visible injuries, so there wasn't a pool of blood or anything. There were people trying to help her; the emergency services had not arrived yet. I also didn't see the impact but came upon the accident minutes after it happened. I didn't stop, since I would have only been in the way.

What I remember is that I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was dead. She was so, so still. I just knew that she was gone.

So extrapolating from that experience, where I didn't know the person, I had no responsibilities, I didn't see the accident, there's no obvious gore, and there was nothing I could have done...if I had know her, if I did have responsibilities, if I saw it happen, if the scene were bloody, and if I thought maybe there was something I could have done...I can honestly saw I think I would be haunted by that. Especially if I knew the set were unsafe, if I knew the person who had shot her, and if my own life had been endangered.

If it would get me the help I needed or if I thought that I could effect change in the industry, I would sue.

[Ridha]

I don’t know about US law (going by the general trajectory for other Tort scenarios it is ALOT easier to file Tort suits in US which is why it’s known as the more litigious culture; UK legislation and judges are far tighter in their scope of what’s claimable in civil law. The McDonald’s hot coffee for instance wouldn’t have worked in UK.) but witnessing an accident is claimable in UK law however under the condition that in addition to witnessing it firsthand there needs to be a “close relationship” between the claimant and the victim of the accident, and there is provable mental trauma (which has its own checklist of what meets the standard).

In UK that’s usually limited to immediate family or long term partners if unmarried. So colleagues wouldn’t be able to claim in UK even if they’d witnessed firsthand but quite possible that US doesn’t have that qualifying restriction, though I don’t know the exact US position on this.

[Ginger]

Jun 22, 2021 13:36:50 GMT -4 Ridha said:

UK legislation and judges are far tighter in their scope of what’s claimable in civil law. The McDonald’s hot coffee for instance wouldn’t have worked in UK

The PR of the McDonald's corporation successfully convinced the public that this was a frivolous lawsuit, and it was picked up in popular culture as a joke, and was parodied on Seinfeld. But it was anything but a frivolous lawsuit.

McDonald's was using temperature-boosting machines throughout all of their restaurants to jack up the temperature on their coffee way higher than what's safe to consume. (Boosters are supposed to be used to up the temperature on the water in dishmachines to sanitize dishes, not on beverages/food.) The idea was that people getting coffee in their drive-through wouldn't actually drink it until they got to work, and boosting the temperature would mean it would still be hot when they got to work.

The boiling coffee spilled all over this woman and she had serious, extensive burns that required hospitalization and prolonged recovery. She contacted McDonald's for a very reasonable reimbursement of $18,000 to cover her medical bills and loss of income. They not only refused, but their lawyers attempted to intimidate her with threats that they would sue her.

She went to trial, won, and the jury awarded her an extremely high amount in punitive damages ($2.7 million) as a punishment/deterrent to McDonald's for their dangerous coffee policy, which they refused to change. 700 other people had been injured by McDonald's coffee since they had started boosting the temperature. The amount was calculated to penalize McDonald's for two days of coffee revenues. (The amount wound up being drastically reduced by the judge to $640,000 total.)

The case is exactly what lawsuits should be used for. A corporation was doing something dangerous, didn't care about the consequences, thought they could bully a victim with the power of their PR and legal teams, and the court made it right. And McDonald's changed how they prepare their coffee.

The fact that people persist in believing that it was just a dumb, greedy lawsuit brought by a woman who saw an opportunity to fleece a big corporation means McDonald's won the PR side of it though.

[Ridha]

Fair points, and true unlike UK judgements I had only heard about the case and not read the direct source. Notwithstanding that her contributory negligence (I think I remember that she held the coffee between her knees on the car seat at some point, though again can’t recall for sure) would have been given a lot of weight in UK, I do think the overall point stands though; whilst this case might not have been the best example of it, the qualifying conditions for what one can claim for in civil suits, and the general approach, is much looser and it has led to some arguably frivolous claims, even though having read more details on the McDonald’s case in your post, that was not in fact one.

In any case it does mean that the claimants against Alec have a case there for witnessing, even though in UK they would have needed to have been Helena’a BFFs as well as witnessing.

[Ginger]

Jun 22, 2021 13:36:50 GMT -4 Ridha said:

Notwithstanding that her contributory negligence (I think I remember that she held the coffee between her knees on the car seat at some point, though again can’t recall for sure) would have been given a lot of weight in UK,

The US jury determined that she was 20% responsible because of how she handled the coffee, and McDonald's was 80% responsible. McDonald's and other companies now serve their coffee in much sturdier cups, which is reducing the problem. Back during the Liebeck vs McDonald's era, they were using cheap styrafoam cups that crumpled in your hand.

As for Alec's case, I once witnessed a fatal accident and it's terrible, but those claimants would have a hard time convincing me they deserve a payout because of their trauma. However, they were in an unsafe workplace, their employers refused to improve safety, and it's only luck that they any of them weren't struck by the bullet, so I'm on their side there. And the fines that the State of New Mexico levied against the production for the safety violations were practically nothing, so I'm not against them having to pay out more.

[cremetangerine82]

Ginger, thank you for defending the late Stella Liebeck; it's unfortunate her surname had "Lie" in it because of the egregious trauma she suffered. Speaking of trauma, those ignorant of the facts of the case still bring her name up as a greedy attention hog instead of an innocent victim of corporate negligence, much to her daughter's frustration. R.I.P. Stella.

OT: I fully support any civil legislation against Alec Baldwin, he's a thoughtless pig.

[tiggertoo]

I heard about this case in a podcast. I think it was You're Wrong About. Yeah, the true story is so far from how it was spun in the media at the time.

On topic, I always enjoyed 30 Rock and wondered if I’d still be able to after my growing dislike of Alec Baldwin. Answer, yes, I do still enjoy it.

Interesting person, for sure. He also had a podcast, Here’s the Thing, which I quite liked.