Johnny Depp Stunt Double Loses Civil Case After Industrial Injury

[Hugh R]

I was personally named as a defendant in this suit.

This was the scene in Pirates 2 where Johnny Depp was tied up on the spit to be roasted and he escapes with the spit still on him. He jumps a crevasse and gets stuck and "Unrolls" from the spit.



WorkCompAcademy News for February 25, 2011

Johnny Depp Stunt Double Loses Civil Case After Industrial Injury

Anthony Angelotti was injured while rehearsing a stunt. He was Johnny Depp's stunt double in the "Pirates of the Caribbean" film. Angelotti was rehearsing a "human yo-yo stunt" designed to simulate Depp's character, Capt. Jack Sparrow, falling and rolling in "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest." Angelotti was attached by a harness to a crane with a cord wrapped around his waist. He was then released from a height of 80 to 90 feet and was to perform five "roll-out turns." But by the time he reached the end of the cord, the tension of the cord was such that it caused the stuntman to immediately "jackknife." He fractured his pelvis, suffered injuries to his bladder, femoral artery, knees and legs, and suffered internal bleeding. The employer (Second Mate Productions, Inc.) contracted with Cast and Crew Production Payroll, Inc., to provide payroll services, including payment of wages and payroll taxes. Cast and Crew also agreed to become the "employer of record”" Angelotti filed a workers' compensation claim with Cast and Crew's insurer and received benefits. He also filed a lawsuit against several parties associated with the film production. The trial court concluded that a production company, Second Mate was Angelotti's special employer and that the workers‟ compensation exclusivity rule precluded any recovery against either Second Mate or its employee Jim Stephan. The court also concluded that The Walt Disney Company and other defendants owed Angelotti no duty of care. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Angelotti appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal. He contends whether he was a special employee of Second Mate is a question of fact that cannot be resolved on summary judgment. He also contends Disney Company and other defendants assumed a duty to ensure that the production complied with occupational safety regulations, and those defendants retained control over the film production and affirmatively contributed to his injury by providing unsafe equipment and failing to ensure his safety. The Court of Appeal in the published decision of Anthony Angelotti v. The Walt Disney Company rejected his arguments and affirmed the decision in favor of the defendants. Angelotti worked as a stunt performer under the direction of both the stunt coordinator, who was an employee of Second Mate, and the films‟ director. The stunt coordinator instructed Angelotti on his daily work schedule and tasks. In light of the nature of the work and the evidence of his actual experience on the job, Second Mate clearly had the right to control the manner and method of Angelotti's work, an indication of an employment relationship. Second Mate hired Angelotti, through his loan-out company, for one week at a time under contracts of one week's duration. Thus, Second Mate retained the right to terminate the relationship at the end of each week with no obligation to rehire him. The Court regarded this as the practical equivalent of the right to discharge at will, which is another strong indication that Angelotti was an employee of Second Mate. Second Mate provided the place of work and all of the equipment necessary to the job, despite the fact that Angelotti elected to use some of his own equipment. Angelotti was paid a fixed weekly wage and had no opportunity for profit or loss depending on his managerial skills. Second Mate hired Angelotti on a weekly basis beginning in approximately December 2004, and the accident occurred seven months later in July 2005, so the duration of work was substantial. Angelotti was paid by time rather than by the job. Film production, including stunts performed for the films, was part of the regular business of Second Mate as a production company. Viewing the evidence as a whole, the Court concluded that the only reasonable inference is that Angelotti was an employee of Second Mate. The Court declined to follow Von Beltz v. Stuntman, Inc. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1467, to the extent that it may suggest to the contrary.

[A930Rocket]

Well, I guess he won't be working in movies any time soon. Glad to hear your part is over with.

[stomachmonkey]

Glad there are no hassles for you.

Torn on the doubles situation though. Feel bad for the guy but he picked his profession and knew it came with risk.

[Racerbvd]

Hugh,

Why did he think he had a case?? Did no one tell him that as a Stunt Man there was a chance that he might get hurt??
Was his accident caused by a faulty set up, his own Boo-Boo or equipment??

How stupid does one have to be to sue the hand that feeds you and can control future gig???

Just wondering..

[Hugh R]

They had done a series of more aggressive rolls and in this instance they'd done 5 wraps of the rope IIRC. He definitely got hurt. On the last one, his legs flew apart from the centrifugal forces and "ripped" him between the legs. Our solution with the next Stuntman was to ratchet-strap his legs together.

The important part of the ruling was that he was deemed an employee, and in CA the sole recourse, barring gross negligence is Workman's Comp. He tried to argue that it was an "Ultra Hazardous" activity and that I should have been there. In fact, it happened when they were rehearsing and I didn't even know they were working that day. The picture I posted is from actual filming after the fact.

[rusnak]

So, if you saw someone who looked and dressed JUST like you get maimed or killed doing what you were supposed to be doing, would you be weirded out by it?

[Tobra]

so his legs flew out and cracked his pelvis like a wishbone? Ouch