Samer Habbas settles an Auto Accident Claim following a Failed Film Set Stunt

Managing Partner, Samer Habbas of the Law Offices of Samer Habbas & Associates secured a confidential settlement following a film set negligence incident, in which a stunt malfunctioned on a popular TV show produced by a prominent studio. At the time of the incident, the defendant had not yet completed safety testing of its stunt machine. Unsure of whether or not the object was secure, the defendant—regardless that any malfunction may cause serious harm or death to those below it—proceeded with safety testing above passersby. Clearly, the defendant placed profits over safety and its desire for the theatrical came at the Plaintiff’s expense when testing failed and the object came crashing into the plaintiff’s moving vehicle without any warning.  Furthermore, the defendant did not provide any warning of a stunt being set up or that it was filming in the vicinity of the incident.

There was no reason for the plaintiff to suspect that they were traveling through anything other than an ordinary roadway, free of any dangers in the middle of the day.   

As a result of the defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff was injured when the malfunction caused the front of the plaintiff’s vehicle to be violently struck by the studio’s equipment. The plaintiff was caught off guard and unable to brace for impact when their vehicle was suddenly struck by a falling object that was suspended over the roadway. The incident left the plaintiff in sudden shock, causing them to require immediate medical care and be transported to a local hospital, where they were treated for a panic attack and discharged.  

The defendant was very evasive with their discovery despite clearly knowing they were at fault for this incident. The defendant placed the risk of the plaintiff and the general public at fault when it elected to perform a stunt above public traffic in the middle of the day. Habbas immediately implemented a very aggressive discovery plan, propounding several discovery requests and noticing depositions involving all persons. This case ended up being hotly contested in law and motion as the defendant consistently refused to produce their employees for depositions. Several motions had to be filed in which the plaintiff prevailed.  

Habbas’ tenacity carried the day as the defendant faced with several motions requesting sanctions for discovery abuse caved in and settled this matter for a confidential amount satisfactory to the plaintiff.