We previously discussed the litigation and criminal investigation surrounding the fatal shooting on the set of “Rust.” Alec Baldwin and others are being sued for negligence in the death of cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins. Now Baldwin has filed a countersuit against the first assistant director, armorer, ammunitions supplier and prop master in Los Angeles Superior Court. The case may turn dramatically on California’s comparative negligence rules.
A lawsuit filed last year by the film’s script supervisor, Mamie Mitchell, accused Baldwin of “playing Russian roulette” by pointing a Colt .45 revolver at Hutchins and accidentally shooting and killing her, according to a search warrant affidavit.
I have previously questioned criminal or negligence claims against Baldwin as an actor in relying on the express assurances that the gun was safe to fire. According to the search warrant affidavit, the first assistant director, Dave Halls, handed the gun to Baldwin while declaring “cold gun,” or a gun with no live rounds.
However, Baldwin was not just an actor on the set. He was one of the producers.
The exchange of lawsuits highlights one aspect of California law. It is a pure comparative negligence state and Baldwin may be fortunate that it is.
In a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction, a plaintiff may recover damages even if he or she is more at fault than the defendant. The award is reduced by whatever the percentage of fault is assigned to the plaintiff. Other states use a partial or modified comparative fault system where you are barred if you are 50 percent or more at fault in your own accident. In the traditional contributory negligence states, a plaintiff can be barred for even one percent of fault (absent a finding under “last clear chance” doctrines).
As a producer, it is likely that Baldwin was negligent to some degree in the shoddy precautions and safety conditions on the set. In a contributory or modified comparative negligence jurisdiction, he could be barred. However, even if he were found more at fault than the defendants, Baldwin could still recover damages under California’s pure comparative negligence rule.
The discovery in the case could be interesting given Baldwin’s public statements (while insisting that he could not speak publicly on advice from counsel). This includes denials of ever pointing a gun at another actor, which could lead to challenges based on various movie scenes.
The Hutchins family is not part of this litigation since it reached a settlement with Baldwin and others involved in the production.