2009Legal / Business Practices forum
Hold harmless agreements for film production work involving explosives and pyrotechnics
17 years old. Gear and prices may have changed since.
What the thread found
- A hold harmless agreement asking workers to waive liability for injuries caused by negligence may not be enforceable if the worker is required to be present as a condition of employment rather than volunteering to participate.
- When a production company hires someone to work on set with explosives, the production company carries legal responsibility for worker safety, even if a hold harmless agreement is signed.
- Hold harmless agreements can distinguish between claims made against the signing party versus claims made against third parties like special effects companies or bomb squads; the production company may pursue claims against these third parties while workers pursue claims through production insurance.
- A hold harmless agreement written for one context, such as martial arts or boxing, may not be appropriate when adapted for film production and could indicate inexperience with production law.
- Production insurance should cover crew members and equipment during hazardous scenes involving pyrotechnics, making separate liability waivers potentially redundant.
- Workers on set with explosives should ensure the bomb squad or special effects team knows their location and follows their safety instructions at all times.
- Radio frequency devices used by crew can interfere with remote detonation systems and must be cleared with the bomb squad before use on set.
- Employment status matters legally: employees have greater liability protections from their employer than independent contractors, who may need their own workers compensation and liability coverage.
Depends on
- The discussion involves advice from non-lawyers who disclaim legal expertise; actual enforceability of hold harmless agreements varies by jurisdiction and specific circumstances.
- The specific form discussed appears to waive liability even for negligence, which may not be enforceable in all jurisdictions.
- No confirmation whether the bomb squad was actually permitted to proceed with the detonation, which was mentioned as a possible reason the work did not occur.
- The advice assumes a US-based production context, likely during 2009 when applicable labor and insurance practices may have differed from current standards.