I wouldn't go with that approach, given the history the media has with presenting lawsuits. There might very well have been some serious screw ups in co-ordination, and while being a stuntman is dangerous per se, the film studios still have a responsbility to keep them as safe as possible.

Let's also keep in mind, that civil lawsuits take quite a lot of time, and can cost a lot of money, and that "gold digging lawsuits" aren't in fact as common as one might think. Most people who sue someone has talked it over with a lawyer, and usually think they have a case. They don't just hobby sue many companies and hope for a lucky break.

What if a stuntman is sitting on a lethal explosive and is not told about it? And then you watch a real human being actually getting blown away in the movie theater. I know it's an exaggeration but I don't believe anyone should get away from getting someone killed if it's his/her job not to and if the stunt did his part correctly. It all depends on whether the stuntman effed his thing up or if the crew did theirs.

yeah, but if they weren't taking adequate precautions then there could be a case.

sure, the job is dangerous, but they're not doing these stunts without making them as safe as they possibly can while still performing the stunt.

the stuntmen put their lives in the hands of the people working on the film.

Maybe they should hire stunt men for the stunt men :)