A dancer is suing for more than £300,000 in damages after a bizarre accident on a movie set caused her to be crushed by a mechanical tree and sustain serious back injuries.
When she was filming an advertisement on location in Poland in September of last year, Keira Johnson, a performance artist who had previously worked for the Royal Opera House, was injured when a tree mounted on a mechanical stump fell on her.
The Bath Dance College graduate from Oakhill, Somerset, was shooting a two-minute commercial in which she and another actor were seen sprinting through a forest and “knocking down trees” when the disaster happened, according to records filed in London’s High Court.
A special effects team came up with a method to use trees placed on a “mechanical pivot or hinge” and timed to fall to give the appearance that the actors were crashing through the forest.
When a tree erected on a mechanical stump fell on Keira Johnson, a performance artist who had previously worked for the Royal Opera House, while she was shooting an advertisement in Poland in September of last year, she had major back injuries.
However, according to Ms. Johnson’s attorneys, a “tree that was designed to fall through a special effects mechanism fell early” and crashed on her, causing “severe” crush injuries to her back.
She has filed a lawsuit against the London-based advertising company DDB UK Limited, doing business as Adam and Eve DDB, alleging “damages for physical harm in excess of £300,000.”
Even though the ad firm acknowledges that woman was seriously hurt during filming, they dispute their responsibility for covering her damages.
Lawyers for the corporation argue that even while DDB signed her on as “talent” for the movie, it was not her employer and had nothing to do with organizing the shoot or designing, constructing, or using the mechanical trees.
According to court filings, Ms. Johnson was one of two musicians that DDB had engaged to appear in the commercial, which was scheduled to be shot in Warsaw last September.
She agreed to a contract that said she would get £350 each day for filming as well as up to £38,000 overall if the completed product was utilized in print advertising and shown on television.
‘This is a claim for personal injuries, suffering and consequential loss resulting as a consequence of an accident that happened on September 7, 2022, while the claimant was contracted to render services for the defendant as a performing artist,’ claim papers from Ms. Johnson’s attorneys said.
The claimant worked for the defendant, an advertising firm. A tree that was supposed to collapse during filming using a special effects system instead fell early and landed on the claimant, seriously injuring them. The accident’s circumstances demonstrate the defendant’s carelessness.
However, in their response to the lawsuit, the ad agency’s attorneys claim that after hiring the “talent” and coming up with the idea for the shoot, they passed control of it over to a “well-established, multi-award winning film production business.”
The production firm chose the idea of lowering trees as the actors went through them rather than, say, employing CGI, according to the ad agency’s attorneys. “While the defendant conceived the notion of two individuals rushing through and knocking down trees,” they write.
The production firm “was in charge of the filming of the sequence and the claimant performed under (the production company’s) direction,” according to DDB’s attorney James Medd.
He adds Ms. Johnson and the other main actor initially completed six rehearsals before the tragic day, “with the claimant and the other lead actor moving across the set and replicating their acts but with no falling trees.”
The claimant and the other main artist then ran across the set as falling trees were released remotely by the SFX department, and the camera followed them. This was done four times.
The accident happened during the fifth take of this profile action. The claimant touched the first tree, which caused the second tree to fall prematurely and crash on her back, seriously injuring her. Just after the second tree, the first tree toppled.
The defense attorney continues, “It is disputed that the defendant had any relevant “level of control” over the filming site or the activities that took place there.
The defendant has no intimate knowledge of the specific design or manufacturing processes used to create the gadget that caused the trees to fall.
It is acknowledged that there were hazards associated with the scenario, but it is refuted that those risks were such that they could not be avoided or managed by a professional production firm or by competent individuals working for it.
It is disputed that, despite the safety measures employed, filming the sequence was especially risky.
The second tree fell at the incorrect moment, but the defendant is unsure of what caused it. However, it would seem most likely that it was either because the person whose job it was to press the buttons to lower the tree pressed the incorrect button or buttons, or pressed the wrong button or buttons at the wrong time, or because the machinery intended to control the tree-lowering process malfunctioned.
The defendant acknowledges that the accident shouldn’t have happened and asserts that the claimant had nothing to do with it.
However, the defendant disputes that it is legally or really to blame for any of these reasons.
‘It was not the defendant’s responsibility to develop or carry out risk assessments. The defendant bases his case on the disclosure of risk assessments by (the production company).
If one or more of these risk assessments were found to be deficient, it was the producing company’s or its subcontractors’ fault.
The barrister writes, “While it is again accepted that the claimant has incurred substantial personal injuries, it is disputed that these were brought about by the defendant’s carelessness.”
The court filings that are now accessible do not specify the precise extent of Ms. Johnson’s “severe” injuries or the product that the movie was supposed to advertise.
The production business is not a party to the lawsuit and DDB UK Limited is the only defendant to the claim.
»Dancer crushed by mechanical tree on film shoot sues for £300,000«