Angelotti v. Walt Disney Co.
121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 863
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Angelotti was injured rehearsing a film stunt.
- Second Mate Productions hired Angelotti through his loan-out company, Skiddadle Inc., with Second Mate paying Skiddadle for services.
- An inducement acknowledged an employment relationship with Second Mate for workers’ compensation purposes.
- Disney Company provided safety guidance but did not provide stunt equipment or exercise control over the stunt.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Second Mate/Stephan and for Disney defendants; plaintiff appealed.
- Court held Angelotti was a Second Mate employee, workers’ compensation barred tort claims against Second Mate and Stephan; Disney defendants did not owe a duty or affirmatively contribute to the injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Angelotti an employee of Second Mate for workers’ compensation purposes? | Angelotti argues disputed facts preclude summary judgment. | Second Mate/Stephan argue special-employer status; exclusivity applies. | Yes; Angelotti was Second Mate's employee; exclusivity barred tort claims. |
| Did Disney defendants owe a duty of care to Angelotti under safety regulations? | Disney retained control and assumed safety duties. | Disney did not assume or delegate a duty; no control over stunt. | No; no duty arose from Disney’s involvement. |
| Did Disney defendants’ retained control affirmatively contribute to the injury? | By retaining safety control and providing unsafe equipment, they caused the injury. | No affirmative contribution; equipment not provided by Disney; no causal control. | No affirmative contribution; no liability. |
| Is Second Mate/Stephan protected by workers’ compensation exclusivity against products liability or negligence claims? | Second Mate/Stephan should face tort liability apart from workers’ comp. | Exclusivity precludes such tort claims. | Exclusivity applies; tort claims against Second Mate/Stephan barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Borello & Sons, Inc. v. DIR, 48 Cal.3d 341 (Cal. 1989) (primary test for employment, including control and integration factors)
- Kowalski v. Shell Oil Co., 23 Cal.3d 168 (Cal. 1979) (dual employer framework and control factors)
- Von Beltz v. Stuntman, Inc., 207 Cal.App.3d 1467 (Cal. App. 1989) (loan-out and control evidence examined against employment status)
- Hooker v. Dept. of Transportation, 27 Cal.4th 198 (Cal. 2002) (hirer liability for retained safety control requires affirmative contribution)
- Shoemaker v. Myers, 52 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1990) (benefit of workers’ comp; strict interpretation of exclusivity)
- Johnson v. Berkofsky-Barret Prod., Inc., 211 Cal.App.3d 1067 (Cal. App. 1989) (test for general vs special employment)