Topic: John Landis - Liable or Not?

The jury didn't think he was liable, and while I haven't read anything more than a few articles, I'm not sure I agree.  Considering safety should always be the director's main concern during a major stunt sequence.  I understand that accidents happen, but he broke several rules to facilitate this accident - he brought in minors to work illegal hours, and didn't inform the parents of the explosives required for the scene.  That second fact ALONE makes him a major bastard.

Landis seems to blame the helicopter's design AND the pyro guy.

Anyway, thoughts?

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: John Landis - Liable or Not?

iJim wrote:

I understand that accidents happen, but he broke several rules to facilitate this accident - he brought in minors to work illegal hours, and didn't inform the parents of the explosives required for the scene.  That second fact ALONE makes him a major bastard.

A bastard, maybe. Liable for the accident, no. If he'd had the kids in during legal hours and told the parents what was going to happen, that wouldn't have much changed how it went down, so those two items are immaterial to the question of liability.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: John Landis - Liable or Not?

Wouldn't be the crux of any case, but I wouldn't call it immaterial - it shows a recklessness and a disregard for the rules when it comes to the kids' welfare (the reason the rules exist).  That Landis is a loose cannon.  And several people on set warned Landis of the dangers of that particular stunt, and even Landis said there is a chance the helo could be crashed by the stunt.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: John Landis - Liable or Not?

Dorkman wrote:

A bastard, maybe. Liable for the accident, no. If he'd had the kids in during legal hours and told the parents what was going to happen, that wouldn't have much changed how it went down, so those two items are immaterial to the question of liability.

But the issue was, they did the shoot late at night, and downplayed the danger to the parents because what they were doing was illegal.   Having actual minors involved with a helicopter and pyro effects was a violation of a half-ton of really good laws, and the prosecution's case was that Landis (and co. - there were three co-defendants) deliberately and intentionally circumvented those laws. 

Witnesses testified that they had informed Landis the scene must be done with stunt doubles or dummies, but that Landis wanted the real kids and Vic Morrow there, to make the scene look all awesome and stuff.  There were also stories of other, earlier safety violations that just happened to not end in death.  I wasn't there, so I don't know the truth of it... but I have been on sets where corners were cut jussst a little because, hey, what could happen?  Never on that scale, though.

So if they'd done the scene legally and stunt performers had been killed, that would have been a tragedy.    Or if there had been some terrible mishap on set that killed three actors, again - tragic.  But these things can happen.   It was the apparent premeditated breaking of numerous rules in order to PUT a name actor and two children in harm's way that made it a criminal trial.

As I recall, Dorsey Wingo (the helicopter pilot and one of the co-defendants) almost requested a separate trial - because Landis and the other two (the production manager and pyro guy)were sorta leaning toward blaming it all on him for missing his mark and getting caught in the pyro blast.  But the takes clearly included Landis' voice yelling "Lower, lower!" so that argument probably didn't stand much of a chance.  And for Wingo,  "I knew it was dangerous but the director told me to do it" isn't a great defense either.

At the time, I was shocked that Landis and co. didn't go to prison .  Not that I wanted them to do time, I just assumed it was inevitable.  The trial was a very big deal for a very long time, and it looked like they were gonna be the scapegoats for getting caught doing something that everybody in the industry had done at one time or other.

Cocaine, hell of a drug.

Re: John Landis - Liable or Not?

We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we're still talking about an event from almost 30 years ago because nothing much like it has happened since.

Given that movie directors are people who, generally speaking, you wouldn't leave your children with for a pool party (especially in the '80s), they've been incredibly responsible/lucky when it comes to not killing employees compared to other industries where people aren't even purposely set on fire, thrown off buildings, or hung out of helicopters.

I'm frankly surprised the film industry hasn't accidentally burned down Los Angeles by now.

Warning: I'm probably rewriting this post as you read it.

Zarban's House of Commentaries

Re: John Landis - Liable or Not?

Trey - Very informative.  But lets say for argument's sake that Landis was found guilty - you don't think he'd deserve jail time?  I'm not saying 20-life.  But Michael Vick time... 18 months, say.

Zarban - Isn't California that state thats always on fire?

Thumbs up Thumbs down