For those who may have missed out on the news

Here it is https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/tri......-AAvSJze

It will be interesting to see how this turns out!

How will this affect other magicians/illusionists in their use of onstage "assistants"?

Your thoughts?

Mark

The judge said thousands of people who had volunteered already knew that part of the act.
https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/cele......-n866576

Why are people not signing waivers of liability?

Plus how is he not insured for this sort of thing?

OH OH OH AND the trick is stupid.

It's actually pretty impressive When You See It live

Good magic to all


Eric

I have seen it live and no it isn't.

Oh I enjoyed it a lot. If I'm not mistaken it is one of, if not the longest running illusions he does. But then again people are different and truly one mans trash is another mans gold.

Good magic to all,


Eric

The trial has now started, here is what has happened so far https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/......Zo9J_1|6

Will the outcome of this trial affect how you use volunteers in YOUR show?

Mark

No because I have an insurance policy.

No, because I don't do anything that could put a volunteer remotely at risk. And I have an insurance policy.

If that's true, that's mind boggling. Even a Kiwani's Club magician with flash paper knows better.

I don't know it isn't true, but he is in court.

My completely unprofessional, uneducated-in-law, opinion is that the insurance companies denied the claim and that's why there's a lawsuit.

I have a very hard time believing that someone could have suffered the injuries this individual is claiming they suffered and it not having been an incident that would have probably shut down the show for the evening. Lasting brain damage? From slipping in a hallway? It really seems to me like someone saw that Copperfield is mega rich and wanted a slice of that pie.

That's exactly the feeling I got when I first heard about this. Grasping; greedy; covetous are words that come to mind. Not to mention litigious.

I get the feeling that Copperfield, or his people, are setting a precedent that if you sue, he won't settle just to protect his "secret". I think it is a good stance otherwise it will simply bring way more of this type of behavior.

This guy, or his mouthpiece, probably figured it would never get this far out of Copperfield's need to protect his "secret".

Yeah, it sure does sound that way. I don't think there's much doubt that it will cost more to go this route than to settle. You gotta admire him and his team for that. There isn't as much of this stuff going on in England (and several other countries) where, in a civil suit, the loser pays all the costs incurred by the trail.

I was once selected to go onstage for this illusion. This was around '06 or '07, on tour, not in Vegas. My friend caught the ball and handed it to me. I went down the aisle and Homer was collecting the balls as you went onstage. I was asked, "Are you a member of the media? Are you a magician?" I said yes. "Do you know anyone who works for the Copperfield show?" I knew who Homer was, and had met Chris about 13 years earlier. (More on that later.) As I walked onstage, David immediately grabs my arm and takes me to the side with another man..."Step over here sir." I assume he was told I was a magician. The other guy and I sat on bar stools just a few feet from the platform where the 13 are seated. As soon as the curtain closed and the platform went up, Homer walks us behind to get a better view. This was in what seemed to be just 10-15 seconds after they were out of sight. We could see shadows in behind the curtain but I knew they were long gone. The curtain dropped, the platform was empty and just a few seconds later they were at the back of the theater. I've performed on that stage and I know there is no trapdoor. I don't know a whole lot about modern illusion techniques, but I know those people are gone long before the audience knows it. Just a few feet away, and I saw NOTHING.

Now....how I met Chris in the early 90s. This was not at a convention or magician hang out. In fact, at that time I was JUST barely getting involved in magic, and I certainly didn't know who Chris Kenner was. I had my thumb tip and silk and Svengali deck and I thought I was hot stuff. I was in college and I worked as a stagehand at the local theater, I was a member of IATSE and everything. I got a call....would I be available to work backstage on such and such date, the show...David Copperfield. I was told that I'd have to sign an NDA and access backstage would be extremely limited. Of course I jumped at the chance. Well, on the big day all the semis carrying the show were late.....VERY late because of a major snowstorm. But, when they arrived, the very first thing that happened was a young guy in glasses brought in a TV/VCR and we watched a short video with a man explaining what a non-disclosure agreement was. I signed, I worked....and I SAW. The last time I saw Chris, I told him this story, he laughed and said, "You know who the guy in the video was? Gary Oullet."

I helped in this effect as a volunteer. Yes you do go in a dark hallway and a kitchen but I never felt unsafe doing it because we were being led by assistants. Also there were a couple of ladies who were in heels running with us.

Best case scenario for plaintiff:

(1) The venue/performer was negligent or reckless with respect to the safety of the spectators. [This will have to be proven; it is a required predicate for a finding of liability on the part of defendants.]

(2) The plaintiff slipped and fell, resulting in injury. [This will also have to be proven.]

(3) The plaintiff's injuries as the result of the fall were very large. [This will have to be proven.]

Best case for the defendants:

(1) The venue/performer was not negligent with respect to the safety of the spectators. [If this can be shown, plaintiff's predicate is negated and there is no liability in the defendants. Defendants can rest their case on proof of this.]

(2) The plaintiff's fall was not due to any negligence on the part of the venue/performer, or the injury was not due to the fall. [If this can be shown, the second prong of plaintiff's case is negated and, again, the defendants can rest their case.]

(3) The plaintiff's injuries as the result of the fall were nowhere near what is being claimed. [If this can be shown, the defendants can rest their case and pay the lesser amount of damages proven.]

Strategy:

(1) Plaintiff: Look for a settlement by requiring the defendants to make public disclosure of things they would prefer to keep private (mechanics of the trick).

a. Not a powerful weapon in this case. The disclosure is that the spectators walked to the rear of the auditorium. In the words of Carl Ballantine, "How else?"

Irrelevancies:

(1) Delay of months between injury and filing of legal action: This is immaterial; many jurisdictions imposing a limitation period use something like two years as the outside limit (and even then the parties can agree to "toll" (i.e., extend) that period in order to ascertain a better basis for assessing the likely damages.

This issue was on our local news last night for about a 2-minute segment. The way the news commentator said it will come down to whether the guy "slipped" or "tripped".

Slipped or tripped? Not really sure what the difference is here..