[Brookhaven]

“Isn’t the person in possession of a firearm responsible for the safety of that firearm?”

No, as the lawyers in the article explained, not in this case.

The prop-master, the person tasked with preparing the gun and ensuring it was properly loaded (with blanks) is the LEGALLY responsible person.

That’s the way the system works in film production. The prop-master prepares the weapon & guarantees it is safe. The actor accepts the word of the prop-master that the gun is safe. That’s the system.

[mmichaels1970]

The prop-master, the person tasked with preparing the gun and ensuring it was properly loaded (with blanks) is the LEGALLY responsible person.

Many don’t want to hear that.

I’m considering two scenarios.

1. Movie has a scene where the camera points right down the barrel and the director directs him to fire. He fires, kills the cinematographer behind the camera.

2. I’ve seen sketchy reports saying he was told they were going to reshoot a scene. He jokingly says “I should shoot both of you”, pulls the trigger, kills the cinematographer.

To me if #1, prop master is liable. If #2, he is negligent and liable. Or at least gets a big share of the blame.

The released facts are pretty thin at this point. Maybe neither of those are true

[granite]

That’s the way the system works in film production. The prop-master prepares the weapon & guarantees it is safe. The actor accepts the word of the prop-master that the gun is safe. That’s the system.

I agree with you, but does it still hold true if the incident occurred outside the actual production (not part of the script)?

The fact that a homicide has been committed throws a major monkey wrench in this event. If a perp wanted to frame someone, this would be too easy.

[FreedomPoster]

What if the actor had some of the responsibility for hiring the prop-master as one of the producers?