Pete Davidson recently revealed that he suffered two concussions within approximately three weeks while filming an independent movie. According to Davidson, he decided to perform his own stunts even though the production had provided a stunt double. The problem, he joked, was that the double was considerably taller than him.
Davidson said the injuries became serious enough that he failed a memory test administered by a doctor and was instructed to avoid bright lights while recovering.
His story raises an important legal question for actors, stunt performers, construction workers, delivery drivers, athletes, and anyone else employed in a dangerous occupation:
If you knowingly perform risky work—or sign a liability waiver—do you give up your right to compensation when you are injured?
Under California law, the answer is usually no, especially when the injured person is an employee.
This article uses Davidson’s publicly reported experience only as an illustration. Public reports do not establish where the movie was filmed, whether Davidson was legally classified as an employee, what agreements he signed, or whether anyone acted negligently.
Knowing a Job Is Dangerous Does Not Eliminate Workplace Protections
Certain jobs naturally involve more danger than others. A stunt performer may fall, collide with another performer, or be exposed to controlled explosions. A roofer works at heights. A warehouse employee operates around forklifts and heavy equipment.
Accepting a dangerous job, however, is not the same as agreeing that an employer or another company may disregard reasonable safety precautions.
California’s assumption-of-risk doctrine focuses largely on the nature of the activity and the legal duty owed by the defendant. The California Supreme Court distinguishes between two general categories:
- Primary assumption of risk: The defendant has no duty to eliminate a risk that is inherent in the activity.
- Secondary assumption of risk: The defendant owes a duty of care, but the injured person knowingly encounters a risk created by the defendant’s breach. In that situation, comparative-fault principles may apply instead of completely barring the claim.
The California Supreme Court has emphasized that participating in a risky activity does not ordinarily mean consenting to someone else’s conduct that unnecessarily increases the danger.
That distinction could become critical in a stunt-related accident.
A performer might accept that a properly planned stunt carries some unavoidable risk. That does not necessarily mean the performer accepts risks created by defective equipment, inadequate rehearsals, poor coordination, an unsafe set, undisclosed hazards, or pressure to resume dangerous work before medically ready.
How Assumption of Risk Might Apply to a Movie Stunt
If a similar case occurred in California, the legal analysis would not end with the observation that the performer volunteered to do the stunt.
The questions would include:
- Was the injury caused by a risk inherent in the stunt?
- Did the production or another party increase the danger beyond what was reasonably necessary?
- Was the stunt properly planned and rehearsed?
- Was suitable protective equipment provided?
- Were relevant medical restrictions communicated and followed?
- Did the performer have a meaningful ability to decline?
- Did a coordinator, equipment provider, driver, or property owner contribute to the accident?
- Was the performer an employee or an independent contractor under California law?
The fact that someone says, “I’ll do my own stunt,” is relevant. But it is not automatically a complete defense.
Workplace decisions are not always made under perfectly voluntary circumstances. A worker may fear losing the role, the paycheck, future assignments, or the approval of a supervisor. California courts recognize that continuing to work despite a known hazard does not necessarily amount to voluntary consent to another party’s negligence.
What If the Performer Signed a Liability Waiver?
Productions, gyms, recreational businesses, contractors, and other organizations frequently ask participants to sign releases or waivers.
A waiver may provide a defense against an ordinary-negligence claim in some California settings. But a signature does not make every waiver enforceable, and it does not erase every legal duty.
California courts examine factors such as:
- What the waiver actually says
- Whether its language clearly covers the accident and the party seeking protection
- Whether enforcing it would violate public policy
- Whether the agreement involves an essential or publicly regulated service
- Whether there was a serious imbalance in bargaining power
- Whether the conduct amounted to ordinary negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, or an intentional act
California Civil Code section 1668 also provides that contracts designed to excuse fraud, willful injury, or violations of law are contrary to public policy.
Most importantly, the California Supreme Court has held that an agreement purporting to release a party from future gross negligence is unenforceable. Gross negligence involves more than an ordinary mistake; it generally means an extreme departure from the conduct of a reasonably careful person.
California’s Tunkl decision further recognizes that an exculpatory clause may be invalid when the transaction affects the public interest, including circumstances involving essential services, regulation, unequal bargaining power, and standardized agreements offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
An Employee Generally Cannot Sign Away Workers’ Compensation Rights in Advance
For California employees, workers’ compensation changes the analysis significantly.
When an injury arises out of and occurs in the course of employment, workers’ compensation generally provides benefits without requiring the employee to prove that the employer was negligent. In exchange, workers’ compensation is ordinarily the employee’s exclusive remedy against the employer, subject to limited statutory exceptions.
A pre-injury waiver generally cannot relieve an employer of its workers’ compensation obligations. California Labor Code section 5000 states that no contract, rule, or regulation may exempt an employer from the compensation liability imposed by the workers’ compensation system. Labor Code section 5001 also provides that a release or compromise of workers’ compensation liability is not valid unless approved by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board or a referee.
In plain English:
An employer ordinarily cannot hand a new employee a waiver stating, “If you get hurt doing your job, you receive nothing,” and use that document to eliminate California workers’ compensation rights.
For an employee injured while performing a stunt, the central workers’ compensation questions would normally be whether the injury arose out of employment and occurred in the course of the work—not whether the employee understood that stunts can be dangerous.
Workers’ Compensation May Not Be the Only Claim
Workers’ compensation generally limits lawsuits against the employer, but it does not necessarily protect every other person or company involved in the accident.
California Labor Code section 3852 preserves an injured employee’s right to pursue damages against a negligent third party.
Depending on the facts of a production accident, potentially responsible third parties could include:
- An outside stunt-services company
- A vehicle operator
- An equipment manufacturer or rental company
- A property owner
- A special-effects contractor
- Another vendor working on the set
A third-party personal injury claim can provide damages that are not ordinarily available through workers’ compensation, including compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life. The workers’ compensation carrier may have reimbursement or lien rights, so the two cases must be coordinated carefully.
The identity of the employer matters. Productions frequently involve studios, production companies, payroll companies, contractors, and specialized vendors. Determining which entity employed or controlled a worker may require reviewing contracts, payment records, call sheets, insurance documents, and the actual working relationship—not simply relying on the label placed in an agreement.
Two Concussions Can Create Additional Legal and Medical Issues
Davidson’s account is especially concerning because it involved two reported concussions within a short period.
From a legal standpoint, successive workplace injuries may require investigation into:
- The date and circumstances of each injury
- Whether the first injury was properly reported
- What medical restrictions followed the first concussion
- Whether decision-makers knew about continuing symptoms
- Whether the second incident aggravated the original injury
- Whether returning to stunt work increased an already-known danger
- How disability and medical responsibility should be allocated between the incidents
An employer or insurer should not dismiss a brain injury merely because the worker initially tried to continue working. Concussion symptoms may evolve, and a worker may not immediately appreciate the extent of memory, concentration, vision, balance, sleep, or emotional difficulties.
Anyone who experiences a head impact followed by confusion, memory problems, vomiting, worsening headache, loss of consciousness, unusual behavior, weakness, or other neurological symptoms should seek prompt medical attention.
“I Volunteered” Is Not the Same as “No One Is Responsible”
Davidson reportedly chose to perform his own stunts. That fact would be relevant in evaluating any hypothetical claim, but it would not answer every legal question.
California law would still examine:
- Whether the risk was inherent or unnecessarily increased
- Whether the workplace was reasonably safe
- Whether applicable safety requirements were followed
- Whether Davidson was an employee or independent contractor
- Whether any waiver was legally enforceable
- Whether the conduct amounted to gross negligence
- Whether an outside party contributed to either injury
- Whether the second injury occurred after warning signs from the first
A worker can understand that a job involves danger without agreeing to bear the consequences of every preventable safety failure.
Injured at Work? Do Not Assume a Waiver Ends the Case
If you were injured while performing your job, do not assume that you have no rights merely because:
- Your work was inherently dangerous
- You volunteered for the assignment
- You signed a liability waiver
- You knew an accident was possible
- Someone classified you as an independent contractor
- Your employer tells you that workers’ compensation is your only option
The interaction between assumption of risk, liability waivers, workers’ compensation, employment classification, and third-party liability can be complicated. The language of the agreement matters, but so do the actual working conditions and the conduct that caused the injury.
A qualified California attorney can determine whether the matter belongs in the workers’ compensation system, whether a separate personal injury claim exists, and whether a purported waiver is enforceable.
Accident Pros LLP helps injured Californians understand who may be responsible and what options may be available. If another person or company contributed to your workplace injury, contact us to discuss the circumstances.
GotCrash.com | 855-776-7557
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
