Woodall v. Wayne Steffner Productions, Inc.
20 Cal.Rptr. 572, 201 Cal. App. 2d 800, 1962 Cal. App. LEXIS 2661 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A participant in a hazardous activity does not assume the risk of injury caused by the negligence of another party, particularly when the participant has received and relied upon assurances of that other party's competence.
Facts:
- Alphonse Woodall performed a stunt called 'The Human Kite,' in which he was lifted into the air on a kite, typically towed over water.
- Wayne Steffner Productions, Inc. contracted with Woodall for $500 to perform the stunt over land, towed by an automobile, for a television show.
- Woodall stressed the need for a skilled driver and offered to bring his own expert, but Steffner Productions insisted they had a 'top qualified' stunt driver.
- Relying on this assurance, Woodall left his own driver at home and agreed to use the one provided by Steffner Productions.
- Steffner Productions assigned Jerome Welo, a studio grip with no stunt driving experience, to drive the tow car.
- Woodall gave Welo explicit instructions not to exceed 30 miles per hour, which Welo agreed to follow.
- During the performance, Welo accelerated the tow car to a speed estimated to be between 33 and 46.5 miles per hour.
- The excessive speed caused Woodall's kite to crash, resulting in serious injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Alphonse Woodall filed a lawsuit against Wayne Steffner Productions, Inc., and Jerome Welo in a trial court for personal injury damages.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Woodall, awarding him $135,000.
- The defendants filed a motion for a new trial.
- The trial court denied the motion for a new trial but reduced the damage award to $70,000.
- The defendants, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a participant in an inherently dangerous activity assume the risk of injury caused by the negligence of a person supplied by the defendant, when the defendant assured the participant of that person's competence and expertise?
Opinions:
Majority - Ashburn, J.
No, a participant in a hazardous activity does not assume the risk of injury from another's negligence when relying on assurances of safety and competence. The court found that while Woodall assumed the risks inherent in the stunt itself, such as wind or equipment failure, he did not assume the risk of the driver's negligence. This is especially true because Steffner Productions had explicitly assured Woodall that they would provide a competent, expert stunt driver, causing Woodall to surrender his own judgment and leave his expert at home. The court also rejected the defense that the driver, Welo, was a 'loaned servant' to Woodall, reasoning that Welo remained under the control of Steffner Productions, which was orchestrating the entire filming operation. Furthermore, a general release agreement signed by Woodall was deemed ineffective to absolve Steffner Productions of its own affirmative negligence because it lacked clear and unequivocal language to that effect.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the limits of the assumption of risk doctrine, establishing that it does not shield a defendant from liability for their own negligence, especially when they have made express assurances of safety. It creates a precedent that a plaintiff's reliance on such assurances can negate the defense, preventing defendants from inducing participation in a dangerous activity with false promises of competence. The case also reinforces the strict requirements for the 'loaned servant' doctrine, confirming that mere cooperation or giving signals does not transfer control from the general employer. This impacts businesses that coordinate complex activities with independent contractors or specialists, underscoring their non-delegable duty of care in providing competent personnel when promised.
Unlock the full brief for Woodall v. Wayne Steffner Productions, Inc.