This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Personal Injury (Non-Vehicular)
Product Liability
Negligence

Douglas Coleman v. Edward Pressman Film Corporation

Published: Nov. 28, 1998 | Result Date: Apr. 13, 1998 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC158766 Verdict –  $0

Judge

Edward M. Ross

Edward M. Ross

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Abram C. Zukor
(Zukor & Nelson)

Abram C. Zukor
(Zukor & Nelson)


Defendant

Richard L. Charnley

Richard L. Charnley


Experts

Defendant

Donald P. Borchers
(technical)

Facts

On Nov. 1, 1995, plaintiff Douglas Coleman, a 35-year-old experienced stunt coordinator, performed a high fall from an 11-story building in downtown Los Angeles. At the time, the plaintiff was attached to a stunt machine called a "descender." The descender was designed and maintained by Lane Levit and his corporation, Levitation. Levitation regularly supplies stunt equipment, including descenders, to the stunt and motion picture industry. The plaintiff had experience using descenders prior to his accident. The descender machine was operated by an experienced operator. If the descender operated correctly, the plaintiff would have been slowed to a stop by the operation of the descender consisting mainly of torque running from the descender along a steel cable through a group of pulleys, eventually being hooked to a safety-harness worn by the plaintiff. The machine, however, did not operate correctly. The plaintiff jumped from the 11-story building, fell, and was about to strike the ground when the operator engaged the emergency brakes, causing the plaintiff to come to an immediate stop from a fall speed of 100 mph. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants based on negligence and strict product liability theories of recovery.

Settlement Discussions

No offers or demands were exchanged.

Specials in Evidence

$50,000 $200,000

Injuries

The plaintiff suffered a broken back, contused aorta and lacerations.

Result

WE NEED THE EXPERTISE OF EXPERT DONALD BORCHERS

Other Information

The verdict was reached approximately one year and after the case was filed.

Poll

____ - ____ (Nos. Pls.)


#89706

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390