I'll be interested in hearing more of how the facts play out on this one since actually getting traction on firearms torts is so tricky.
Things I've heard reported without knowing the factual basis for:
What role he played as a producer in vetting the 'expert' after other more reputable sources declined the project; that there were other accidents on set; that normal and customary practices were to have various assistants, and that one person is usually solely devoted to clearing the weapons, another to maintaining and inspecting for safety the mechanics and making repairs, etc which were quoted as reasons by another reputable party declined the project when the jobs were merged at producers discretion for budgetary reasons; that the prop guns were being used recreationally by staff outside filming (which you would hear, if not partake); the report that the expert shot her foot on the project demonstrating a lack of qualifications;
The questions basically (in my mind) narrow to:
* his knowledge and/or role as producer re: the designated personnel, problems on set, etc
* his knowledge in any capacity of the firearms problems on the project that would reasonably create doubt he should rely on
* why he even pointed the gun where he did or pull the trigger, which, reportedly, were unrelated to any filming purpose.
We get through those 3, and you'll have your answers.
Reality: he's rich. He has influence. He can out litigate any family/survivors in a civil suit, and the jurisdictions want the jobs and tax money more film projects bring.. prosecuting the 'talent' is a sure way to chill those prospects. He's 99% going to walk.
But he better enjoy those cool Vermont getaways for now because he isn't getting younger. Soon he'll meet the only judge that matters, and it'll be a bit hotter where he's headed for a long long time.
