Producer files a lawsuit against The Weather Channel after tornado injury

Bill Hark

EF5
Joined
Jan 13, 2004
Messages
1,344
Location
Richmond Virginia
Copied from the Courthouse News Service. The link is also at the end. This is an old article but interesting, and I didn't see it mentioned in earlier threads. Maybe that's why I haven't seen the Weather Channel's Tornado Hunt Team out on these recent storms or it's just cheaper to use streamers:

DALLAS (CN) - A producer for The Weather Channel was seriously injured when a tornado flipped over his car during a storm chase, the man claims in court.
Robert Austin Anderson, of Austin, sued channel parent The Weather Company, Comcast Corp., NBC Universal, The Blackstone Group, and Bain Capital on Feb. 6 in Federal Court.
Anderson says he was hired to produce, drive and act as a second camera operator for the channel's 2013 tornado hunt team. He says he was instructed to drive a 2013 GMC Yukon XL from Kansas to Oklahoma on May 31, 2013, when the storm hit.
"Prior to the incident, an engineer named Kevin Parrish, employed and/or directed to by NBC News, disengaged the airbag systems on the rental vehicle which was being used," the complaint states. "The occupant protection safety systems that were built into the vehicle were, in essence, destroyed."
Anderson says the defendants should have known he was placed "in harm's way without the benefit of the vehicle's crashworthiness safety systems." He says they should have informed him of "the known and/or foreseeable dangers."
"One or more of the defendants were negligent in not providing roll cages or reinforced roof structure vehicles," the complaint states. "One or more of the defendants were negligent in not providing crash safety protections equipment such as HANS devices, helmets or spine protection."
Weather Channel spokesman David Blumenthal said the company does not comment on pending litigation.
Anderson seeks damages for negligence and pain and suffering. He is represented by E. Todd Tracy in Dallas.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/02/09/storm-chaser-sues-the-weather-channel.htm
 
Can we go ahead and throw the lawsuit out now instead of clogging the legal system with additional buck-seeking litigants? If I'm the defense attorney, 1) I grill him on whether he knew that there are risks in driving vehicles in the vicinity of tornadoes, 2) ask if he was the driver, did he drive into a tornado?, 3) get some engineer to testify that vehicle air bags may not offer much protection in 200+ mph winds and really weren't designed with tornado encounters in mind, and 4) ask the rental car company how many of their vehicles have roll cages and/or reinforced roof structures.

The only party with a good legal action would be that of the rental company seeking recovery from those who knowingly trashed the rental vehicle now that they know what that vehicle was used for.
 
I'm all for having the Weather Channel get the heat turned up on them a bit, but come on. Saying you don't know the risks when you're hired to chase storms is like saying you didn't know the cup that says "Caution: hot beverage" on the side contained a hot beverage. Also, roll cages? Please.
 
Whether or not he knew what he was doing, it's illegal to disable a car's airbag system unless you have special needs. This will be settled out of court because TWC would lose on that count right away...
 
The complaint is not about the danger associated with weather conditions, but rather, the "disengagement of the airbag system." The obvious legal question is if he knew about it in advance and accepted the risk. If he had no knowledge, then there is a claim.
 
But even if he had prior knowledge, what TWC did is clearly illegal. I'm not sure that just saying "he knew they were disabled" gets around that...
 
The claim says he wasn't aware the airbag system was disengaged. Also, if he was hired to produce some kind of work for WTC and TWC provided the equipment to do the work, it is WTC's responsibility to provide safe working equipment.

I would also like to reply to some of the comments above: the fact that an employee is fully aware of the risks related to a task doesn't discharge his employer from any liability related to the fact that he is asking said employee to perform a known dangerous task without providing sufficient safety measures.

Like rdale said, I don't think TWC stands a chance there, this is likely to be settled out of court and this is likely to be the end of any hired storm chasers.
 
The claim says he wasn't aware the airbag system was disengaged.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I remember hearing Mike Bettes say it was actually disengaged, because he had a tablet mounted on the dashboard that would be propelled into his face if there was a problem. The trucks, if I recall were provided by NBC.

JOhn
 
That's not a legal reason. We had one of Baron's first chase vans, and a laptop was mounted there. I called them and asked what's up - and they told me just to go get the airbag disabled.. That was not an option ;) so we just moved the laptop.
 
Hogtie every one of these litigants to "Dorothy" and set it down in front of the first available churning wedge. Then let's sashay on down to the saloon and celebrate the most successful chase day of our lives. I'm buyin'.
 
Back
Top