See more of our coverage in your search results.
Warner Brothers just lost its bid to dodge Russell Brand’s “willy kiss” sex-assault case, thanks to a Manhattan judge.
The mega studio must now either face trial over whether it turned a blind eye to already existing seamy allegations against Brand when it hired him for the 2010 comedy “Arthur” — which his on-set accuser’s lawyers say were well-known — or try to settle out of court with the woman.
An anonymous female extra sued the British comedian and actor — who is in the midst of a rape trial across The Pond — and the film studio in 2023, claiming Brand sexually assaulted her in a bathroom while a crew member stood guard outside.
She said Brand appeared drunk on set and flashed his privates to her “in full view of the cast and crew,” the suit claims.
Hours later, Brand blocked her from leaving a bathroom with his pants down and his hand clutching his penis, repeatedly demanded she “kiss his willy” and shoved her head and month onto his penis, according to court papers.
Warner Brothers’ and the other corporate defendants tried to argue that since they had no prior notice of his behavior and no complaints from the movie set, there was no way they could have known before casting that he might be an issue.
But Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Adam Silvera said their plot was full of holes.
Silvera said that based on an examination of records available about Brand in 2010, “a jury may find that it was reasonably foreseeable that a sex addict, self-described womanizer,” known for being “overly flirtatious,” who some referred to as “a vile predator” and “a ticking timebomb” at the time of his hiring, “may ultimately cause the type of injury that plaintiff, an extra in the movie, alleged.
“The question of whether the corporate defendants had constructive knowledge of Brand’s propensities is a question of fact best left for the jury to decide,” Silvera wrote in his decision denying their motion.
“A question of fact remains as to whether the corporate defendants could have intervened to stop the alleged assault.”
Brand’s accuser’s legal team hailed the ruling as a move toward holding “Warner Brothers and Brand accountable for their conduct, and [getting] long-delayed justice for our client.”
“As the Court properly recognized, Warner Brothers’ can’t stick its head in the sand about Brand’s disturbing past and then claim that they’re absolved of liability because they didn’t know anything when they hired him,” said Nathan Werksman, one of the lawyers on her legal team.
Neither reps for Warner Brothers’ nor Brand responded to Post requests for comment. It’s unclear if the studio plans to appeal the decision.
Jurors in Brand’s criminal UK rape trial have been deliberating since Tuesday.
