Jury Orders Baldwin to Pay Paparazzo $4,500

VAN NUYS —  In a case of fame, finger-pointing and conflicting stories, a civil jury decided Monday that Alec Baldwin and a celebrity photographer were both to blame for a scuffle outside the actor’s Woodland Hills house nearly three years ago.

“What we had, in essence, was one man’s word against another,” said jury foreman Ronald G. Meyersburg, 49, of Sherman Oaks. “I personally saw it as a case that shouldn’t have gone to trial at all.”

After hearing different versions of what happened when Baldwin confronted photographer Alan Zanger on the day Baldwin brought home his new baby, the five-woman, seven-man jury found that both men were negligent.

Zanger maintained that the actor hit him in the face in an unprovoked attack. Baldwin said it was self-defense.

The jury found Zanger’s injuries and losses worth $6,000--about what it cost for new glasses, the cut on his nose, lost pay and a week’s worth of medical treatment. The money, though, was a fraction of the $85,000 Zanger was seeking. And because Zanger was 25% responsible for his own injuries, the jury ordered Baldwin to pay only $4,500.

Zanger said he was happy the jury agreed that he had a right to film the celebrity actor, adding he would continue to do his job in the same way. Even so, he was obviously agitated and complained that he should have “been compensated for my damages.”

Jurors said they didn’t award Baldwin any money because he had said he didn’t want any. In addition, Meyersburg said, “We thought it was impossible to put an amount of money on what Mr. Baldwin had suffered. How could you possibly recast that day for him and his child and his family?”

One of the main issues of the trial, jurors said, was Baldwin’s claim of invasion of privacy. But only three jurors, including Meyersburg, agreed.

Still, the verdict was a financial victory for Baldwin, who stood to lose a lot more money had the jurors paid Zanger what he wanted. Jurors said they had a hard time believing the photographer.

Baldwin, wearing a dark blue golf shirt and khaki pants, mouthed “thank you” to the jury after the verdicts were read. He shook their hands and thanked them individually as they headed for Superior Court Judge Stephen Petersen’s chambers.

Baldwin ducked interviews, but his lawyers said he was ecstatic.

“We’re thrilled with the verdict all the way around,” said Baldwin’s lawyer Philip Weiss. “This was never about the money.”

The case involved a scuffle between the actor and the photographer on Oct. 26, 1995--the day Baldwin brought his wife--Academy Award-winning actress Kim Basinger--and their 3-day-old daughter, Ireland, home from the hospital.

Zanger was parked outside the Baldwin house on Don Juan Place in his converted pickup truck, crouched in his camper to film the family’s arrival.

Baldwin was suspicious and walked up to the truck. When he saw the light of a video camera, he testified, he covered the windows with shaving cream.

Zanger said he got out of the car, claiming he was afraid Baldwin would attack him. He claims the actor, without provocation, then smashed him in the face and kicked him in the rear.

Baldwin claims that he hit the photographer in self-defense, after Zanger raised his video camera in a threatening way. Then, he said, the much smaller photographer charged him, and Baldwin shoved and kicked him in defense.

Baldwin was arrested on battery charges but was later acquitted.

Zanger filed a civil lawsuit for assault, battery, negligence and emotional distress. Baldwin countersued for assault, negligence, emotional distress and invasion of privacy.

A majority of jurors said they didn’t believe Baldwin acted in self-defense. But, they added, he was much more credible than Zanger.

“Basically, we had a tough time with the credibility of [Zanger] on a number of issues, both with how the incident occurred and the existence of the injuries,” Meyersburg said.

They said they didn’t think the confrontation was serious enough to qualify as assault or battery.

“We thought the negligence issue was the best way to come up with a just verdict,” Meyersburg said.

Zanger’s lawyers called the verdict a victory for the 1st Amendment but were still unhappy.

One of Zanger’s lawyers, Leonard Steiner, said his client was a victim of his profession. Jurors, he said, did not believe him simply because they don’t like what he does.

“We usually don’t commence litigation to wind up at the end of the day with $4,500,” said Steiner, adding that he intends to seek recovery of his legal costs. “On the other hand--hey, we won. We accept this verdict and will get on with our lives.”