Transformers 3 Actress Gets $18.5M For her Injuries
Paramount Pictures are trying to show they are good people by jumping on the bandwagon saying they wish Gabriela Cedillo well after they reached a settlement related to the injuries she received on the set of Transformers 3. For years they have refused to pay her medical bills or admit they did anything wrong and now suddenly after they settle for a huge sum of money they are all sorry and sending out prayers for her recovery. Gabriela was injured when she was driving a stunt vehicle. A piece of metal hit the car and her head and left her brain damaged. A portion of her skull was removed, she is blind in one eye and has seizures and memory loss. The family sued two years ago and Paramount delayed and fought as long as they could. They should have settled immediately.
22 comments:
That poor woman. I get doing stunts is insanely dangerous, but, damn! Can't believe they took this long.
The big boys in Hollywood always do the right thing. SNARK!
Holy shit! Glad she got paid, poor lady.
Hollywood suits being the greedy pigs that they are. My prayers go out to this woman.
OMG, that is terrible! What a bunch of pigs!
if Paramount had paid immediatly,it would have been less expensive
Greedy Studio, probably could have settled for half that if they did it right away
Oh My God!!! This is horrible. This poor woman. No amount of money could ever bring back what she lost. Paramount, the money grubbers, should have done something about it immediately is right.
As crappy as it may be, isn't that they way the legal system works, Enty? I wonder how much money Paramount's legal team made by delaying the envitable? I'm sure they racked up lots of billable hours over the span of two years.
I feel terrible for this woman. But they really do need to wait to settle a case like this. Regardless of how horrible the injuries are, the settlement has to take into account her future care. And it takes a while to determine what her condition will be like down the line. They would need an outside person to create a life care plan. And another reason for the studio to delay settlment - believe it or not, if she died, the damages would be much less since there would be obviously no future care. The only people to have any sort of claim then would be her parents (unless she was married or had children). I can only imagine what her life care plan was determined to be for a settlement to be that high.
Don't stunt people sign contracts that prevent the studio from being sued?
What changed that made them pay? I thought this was a really straightforward case, it was all over the news at the time. I would have thought this would have been settled the first month. It makes Paramount look incredibly bad that they delayed it like this.
I think she was driving her own car, too. (Could have sworn I read that earlier today.)
Makes no sense for them to fight over the hospital bills, what was their reasoning?
From what I read at first they promised to cover all medical costs and when it went to over $300,000 they refused to pay.
The accident was investigaged and the studio was cleared of any wrong doing. Which reeks to me of some kind of pay off.
She wasn't even driving a stunt vehicle she was an extra in the background driving her own car. She a cable snapped during a stunt and nailed her in the head causing permanent brain damage.
she's gorgeous......wow.
Stunt people are crazy brave.
I don't think this even counts as a stunt. This could have been any one of us. If I remember right, she just signed up to drive her car in the background. They say go and you go, nothing special. But a cable broke and hit her. What started as being able to point to the screen and say "that's me, way in the back!" ended up changing her life.
Ugh. To me this just sounds like Paramount trying to cover the bad press they are going to get on the net from their decision to hold back the new G.I. Joe movie because they want to release it in 3-D. Sounds stupid, I know. Think about it though. Paramount makes a decision to hold back a movie, that isn't that highly anticipated anyways, because they want to have a 3D version out at the same time. No, They saw that movies can do well even in March, thanks to "Hunger Games" and with films like "Avengers", "Prometheus", "Spider-Man, and "TDKR" there really isn't any huge movement to see this film. Paramount has already sunk a bunch of money into it and as summer releases look now it'll do well for 1 week, maybe 2 but doubtful. In other words it won't make any money and cost Paramount more. Instead they can hold off until a time when there is little resistance AND put out a version that costs more to see. All based on "Hunger Games" doing well when any analyst with even 1/4 of a brain, no offense to the story above, can tell you it's because "The Hunger Games" already had a HUGE following. NOT because it was a good movie.
Anyways, I seem to like to write a lot sorry, the point is Paramount made a decision that was quickly seen as stupid, through online comments and reaction. By releasing the statement that they have paid a LARGE sum to cover a horrible accident they avoid people calling them out for recent idiotic moves because only a "good" studio would be so excessive. At least that what this sounds like to me.
Yes please don't think she was a stunt person taking some kind of calculated risk. She was an extra that got whipped in the head with a cable that snapped. It went through the windshield and sheared her head in her own car.
Shit like this is why I don't feel bad watching movies online and stuff. I have no problem giving my money to writers, crew, actors, whatever, but some of these studios are just evil. Yes, it would have been cheaper and smarter to pay this off right away.
If the incident happened as reported here and she was really just a background actor this is horrific.
My grandfather was major underwriter of liability insurance. He always said ' you protect your insured but you payout on every good claim and do it as quickly as possible,' that sure does not seem to be the case here.
Does anyone know what grounds Paramount was using to fight this?
uberbaldy, I think you nailed their thinking. I don't think it's going to work for them, both because of the reasons you gave, and because it's just pissed off those few people who were excited to see the movie. I think it's dead in the water, and no matter what they do, there's no way to save it.
The video is here. It's not easy to see though they replay it three times:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/09/transformers-3-extra-in-c_n_710763.html
Post a Comment