Sasha Baron Cohen’s Borat movies are popular with fans of Cohen’s cringe-worthy satire.  They have also been popular targets for lawsuits.  Baron Cohen and the producers of the two Borat films, Borat:  Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan and Borat Subsequent Movie Film, have been sued at least seven times.  In the movies, Baron Cohen plays Borat, a clueless and crude journalist from Kazakhstan.  Baron Cohen lures unsuspecting subjects into embarrassing situations, as his Borat character pretends to be on a quest to learn about American culture.  Several people, unhappy with their unflattering portrayals in the movies, have filed suit, claiming to have been tricked into unwittingly participating in the movies.

To date, the lawsuits have achieved only limited success.  While Baron Cohen clearly does not warn his subjects that his intent is to embarrass them in a film that will be widely viewed in the United States, Baron Cohen does have his subjects sign a release before filming.  Presumably, Baron Cohen allows his participants to have the impression that he is filming a documentary that will be shown in Kazakhstan, while the release allows Baron Cohen and his studios broad rights to use the footage.

Following the release of the first film in 2006, Baron Cohen and 20th Century Fox were sued by an Alabama etiquette coach, Kathie Martin, who accused Baron Cohen of “tricking her into being a part of a childish prank.”  Martin, perhaps one of the more sympathetic plaintiffs in the lawsuits filed against Baron Cohen, engaged in a futile attempt to teach Borat Southern manners, only to bring Borat to a dinner party where he defecated into a plastic bag .  Citing the language in the release signed by Martin, the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit, although one of the justices expressed sympathy for the fact that Martin had been exposed to “boorish and offensive” behavior.

Baron Cohen and 20th Century Fox were also sued following the first film by two University of South Carolina fraternity brothers after the movie showed the fraternity brothers making sexist and racist comments.  Like Martin, the fraternity brothers claimed that they had been tricked into participating in the movie, contending they had been told that the film would not be shown in the United States. They also claimed that Baron Cohen took advantage of their intoxication.  Again, this suit was dismissed based on the release language. 

Some scenes in the first Borat movie were filmed in the village of Glod, Romania.  For their appearance as extras in the film, villagers received $70 to $100 each, although some people received as little as three lei (the equivalent of $1.28 at the time).  After learning of the success of the movie, villagers filed suit, seeking $83 million in damages.  The lawsuit was dismissed in 2006 and again in 2008.

One lawsuit that achieved some success was filed by a Macedonian singer, Esma RedZepova, who alleged that one of her songs had been used in the movie without her permission.  She sued for $800,000  but was awarded approximately $26,000.

The most poignant story about litigation arising out of the Borat movies involves a lawsuit filed by the daughter of a Holocaust survivor over her mother’s appearance in the 2020 sequel.  In the movie, Borat interviews Holocaust survivor, Judith Dim Evans, and espouses anti-Semitic and Holocaust-denying views.  Rather than reacting with justifiable anger, Evans tries to explain, with patience and kindness, why Borat’s views are wrong.  It is one of the few instances in the Borat films where a participant in the film is portrayed favorably.  Unfortunately, Evans passed away before the movie was released.  Concerned that her mother was made to be the butt of one of Baron Cohen’s jokes, Evans’ daughter filed suit prior to the release of the film, contending that Baron Cohen and Amazon had misappropriated her mother’s likeness.  In the suit, Evans’ daughter sought an injunction, requiring Amazon to remove Evans from the film.  Ultimately, Baron Cohen, who has made combating Holocaust denial a personal cause, dedicated the movie to Evans.  Baron Cohen also helped create a website in Evans’ honor and Amazon is developing bonus content for the film that will tell Evans’ Holocaust story.  The lawsuit was dismissed.

If you believe you have a strong case for injury, find out more about your options by, contacting a personal injury lawyer in Sebastian, FL, like from Tuttle Law, as soon as possible.

Personal Injury Lawyer

In most accidents that result in injuries, someone is found at fault. If someone else was responsible for causing your injuries, it can make the claims process a little more straightforward, as you’ll turn to their insurance for compensation. However, what if no one is at fault for your injury? Who do you turn to for compensation then? The answers are usually simple, mainly because you can generally find fault, even if it is just your own. Here’s how fault is determined and what it means for your case.

Negligence and Fault

Fault for any injury is determined by the negligent actions of one or more of the parties involved in the accident. For example, if a driver was texting and they rear-ended another car, causing whiplash in that driver, the texting driver’s negligence would make them at fault. To file a claim with that person’s insurance, you must be able to prove that they were negligent and that their negligence caused the accident that led to your injuries.

Proving Negligence

Proving another’s negligence is a tricky task. To do so, you must provide evidence that confirms the other person’s negligence. For the texting driver, you may be able to speak to witnesses who can confirm the driver was texting just before the crash. The more evidence you give, the greater chance your claim has of success. If there is any doubt about who was at fault, the insurance company may refuse to compensate you.

No-Fault States

Most states have different laws for determining fault. Some split the fault between the two parties if both were partially at fault, while others are no-fault states. If you live in a no-fault state, you can only file a claim with your own insurance, even if another person caused your injuries.

When No One Is at Fault

If it seems like no one was at fault for your injury, take another close look at the situation. Slips and falls may appear innocent, but they can actually be the result of a company not properly maintaining the building or warning passersby of hazards. You may discover that your employer, another driver, or a company can be filed against for compensation.

If you are unclear about who is at fault for your injury, reach out to a personal injury lawyer, like from Barry P. Goldberg. They can help settle the facts about your case and create a strong claim to get you back on your feet.

Personal Injury Lawyer

Several cases from the Virginia Supreme Court have held that treating physicians may testify regarding their impressions and conclusions formed while treating a patient, that deviations from the medical records does not render testimony inadmissible, and that only testimony constituting a diagnosis must be stated to a reasonable degree of medical probability, as a medical malpractice lawyer, such as from The Law Offices of Ryan Quinn, PLLC, can explain.  

In Pettus v. Gottfried, 269 Va. 69 (2005), the Virginia Supreme Court held admissible under Code § 8.01-399 a treating cardiologist’s testimony that a patient’s change in mental status “could have been” a central nervous system problem. Id. at 77-78. Although the cardiologist’s statement was not rendered within a reasonable degree of medical probability, the court held that the testimony was admissible because it did not constitute a diagnosis. Id. at 78.  The court characterized the testimony as “factual in nature,” and determined that the testimony merely explained the physician’s impressions and conclusions formed while treating the patient.  Id. at 77-78.  The court also disagreed with the contention that the cardiologist’s testimony was inadmissible since it deviated from the entries in the medical records.  The court held that since the medical records mentioned the possibility of a central nervous system embolic event, any distinction to be drawn between the written entry and the cardiologist’s testimony did not affect the admissibility but was a proper subject for cross examination.  Id. at 78.

Similarly, in Holmes v. Levine, 273 Va. 150 (2007), a medical malpractice case against a radiologist, the Virginia Supreme Court considered the medical testimony of a treating urologist to determine whether that testimony involved the rendering of a diagnosis.  Id.  At issue were the portions of § 8.01-399 referring to “diagnoses, signs and symptoms, observations, evaluations, histories, or treatment plan” that are “contemporaneously documented during the course of the practitioner’s treatment” and the requirement that a diagnosis must be “offered to a reasonable degree of medical probability” in order for it to be admissible at trial.  In Holmes, the urinalysis report indicated a “trace” of blood in the plaintiff’s urine.  Id. at 163.  In testimony later elicited by defense counsel, the urologist testified that she “did not think that an occasional red blood cell would qualify for microscopic hematuria.” Id. at 157.  The court held that this statement was not a medical diagnosis but was merely the urologist’s “impression,” formed during the plaintiff’s treatment, and was not her present medical expert opinion about the clinical significance of the results of the urinalysis.  Id. at 162.  The court also found that any distinction between the documentation in plaintiff’s medical records and the urologist’s testimony “did not affect the admissibility of the testimony but was a proper subject for cross-examination of the witness.”  Id. at 163.

And, in Graham v. Cook, 278 Va. 233 (2009), the Virginia Supreme Court considered the challenged testimony of Graham’s two radiologists.  Id. at 244.  At issue were statements that there was a “possibility of avascular necrosis,” that “avascular necrosis cannot be excluded,” that there was a “suspicion for avascular necrosis,” and a bony defect suggested a “fracture and avascular necrosis.”  Id.  The Court concluded that the challenged statements were factual in nature and related the physicians’ impressions and conclusions formed when treating plaintiff.  The court found that as factual impressions formed during these doctors’ treatment of plaintiff, the challenged findings were analogous to the statement from the treating cardiologist in Pettus that the patient’s change in mental status “could have been” a central nervous system problem, and the statement from the treating urologist in Holmes that she “did not think that an occasional red blood cell would qualify for microscopic hematuria.” Id. at 244-45.  The court further found that statements did not constitute diagnoses because they did not purport to identify specifically the cause of plaintiff’s health condition based on his signs and symptoms.  Id. at 245.  Therefore, because the statements did not impart a diagnosis, the statements were admissible under Code § 8.01-399(B), regardless of whether they were stated within a reasonable degree of medical probability.  Id.

If you’ve been injured and are wondering if you have a strong legal case, don’t wait to talk with a personal injury lawyer. Contact a law firm today for a consultation.