Autobot032 wrote: I understand you're trying to see both sides of the situation, I get that, but I have to admit that I'm thoroughly mystified as to how anyone can fence sit on this one.
She is clearly the victim, they are clearly at fault, and she was given a reasonable expectation of safety. You said, previously, that she basically should've seen it as being potentially dangerous and that she accepted the responsibility when she took the role.
Why? I mean, it doesn't make sense. You're not giving any depth to your argument, here. She was driving down the opposing lane of traffic. There was a median divider. The stunt was happening in a different lane. The safety cable broke unbeknownst to her or anyone else. Granted, they had no idea it was going to happen, but neither did she. Why should she assume that such a horrible thing could take place, simply because she was driving her car in a controlled environment?.
It wasn't a controlled enviorment. There is no such thing. From walking up the stairs in your house, to your morning comute to work, nothing is controlled. NO matter how many saftely steps are taken, things can happen. Wether it be neglgence on someone's part, or equpiment failure thats beyond everyones controll. Things happen and sometimes, there is nothing noone can do about it.
This was a stunt. This means there is an inherit amount of danger envolved, even if your not directly invloved. The fact that she was in another lane has nothing to do with her being completely out of harms way. I believe its a bit nieve to think that being invloved or around stunts where cars are being tossed in the air that there's zero posibility of things to go wrong.
Autobot032 wrote: They ended up getting her hurt and then tried to deny it. They wouldn't have to deny anything if they hadn't allowed this to happen. I don't care what the safety inspector said, if the cable was secure and safe, it shouldn't have broken. Something they did, or the equipment was faulty, whatever, there's a reason why it happened and we may never know it.
Allow this to happen? So you really believe that the movie crew simpley "allowed" this to take place? I surely hope i'm miss reading you. As far as it shouldn't have broken, your right. It shouldn't have. BUt the fact that it didn't, doesn't nessasarly mean that someone didn't do there job propperly. It was already deamed back in 2010, that it was an equipment failure and nothing to do with faulty rigging or the sort. Again, even when all saftelt meansures are done, unexpected things can happen.
Autobot032 wrote: They are responsible. She isn't. And they should've just fessed up and admitted they put her life on the line..
You never admit guilt. That is rule #1 with any accident. That is the job of the insurance compaines and investigators. Even if its a simple fender bender in a parking lot. for example,..
Do you drive? If so, do you have insurance? If so, call your insurance agent and ask them if involved in a car accident wether or not its advisable to openly admit guilt to the other party. I bet you there going to advise you not to admit guilt, even if its aparent that your at fault. Even at times while it might seem aparent, it really isn't. You open yourself up to much more litigation once fault is admitted regardless of wether or not an ivestigation shows you clear of any wrong doing.
Autobot032 wrote:I'm sorry. Like I said, I normally agree with you on most things, but I have to completely disagree, this time. She had reasonable expectations of safety. ..
Hey, your human and so am I. Its cool that we see eye to eye on most things, but even if we don't, at least we can be respectfull about it.
Autobot032 wrote: Okay, let's say you're walking on a new sidewalk. It's perfect. Not a single bump, dip, whatever. Yet, somehow it trips you and hurts you. When looking at it, don't you have a reasonable expectation of having that NOT happen? I would surely hope you do. If you don't, well.....
Dude, that's alittle different than par-taking in a stunt where cars are being tossed in the air. BUt in your senario, concidering you already stated that the sidewalk is pefect. No humps, bumps or dips, at that point i would place blame at the person more than likely tripped over there own feet, walking/chewing gum at the same time, girl with big boobs walked by, anything but the sidewalk or the people who layed the sidewalk are at fault there.
Autobot032 wrote:Bottom line, you can't have it both ways and you're trying your hardest to do so. She was wronged and deserved compensation. Those are the facts.
Just so where clear, i'm not saying that she doesn't deserve any compensation for her injuries, but i don't believe that the production crew was negligent in any way, nor do i believe that this was just cut and dry about it being a 100% safe enviorment. This was a stunt accident gone wrong. No matter how you look at it, there is an inherit danger when being around this enviorment.
vectorA3 wrote: Lol. You almost sound like you're rooting for the studio and they're cover up when you say this. But you're probably not. This is standard procedure in big business I guess.
Malkovich in DOTM: "Yeah a co-worker just died, ok, ya, let's move on....."
Not ruiting for the studio in any way. As i explained earlier, not admitting guilt is common practice when involved in any accident. NO matter how big or small. Again, if you drive a car and have insurance, call your insurance company.agent and ask if they advise admitting guilt when being involved in an accident.
