True Sue, but there are also defenses based on a reasonable reliance that others have done what they are supposed to do. In the handling of firearms, I am unsure how it would apply, but there are many times where an actor (or a director or a producer) can reasonable rely on the actions of others in doing their jobs properly (e.g. a collapse of part of the set is not the fault of the actor, even if the scene required him to call someone to a specific area (such as a stairway) that collapsed. It may, of course, be the fault of the producer for negligence in hiring the craftsman, but otherwise I would think workers comp might apply against the employer (likely the production company)--then again I am unsure. As for Baldwin being a "producer", I think it will have to be looked at closely--my guess is it is just a vanity title given to Baldwin (maybe to give him a bit more money) and he had no real authority the set, but the facts, as they are uncovered, will tell the truth here.The civil liability case here doesn't really turn on who's individually responsible for what on the set. This is a case of "res ipsa loquitur," meaning that negligence can be assumed just from the occurrence of the incident alone.
And I also agree with you on the criminal charges--absent some additional information, I can't see how it will stand. IMHO, it's just an ambitious DA trying to get his 15 minutes in the spotlight, but time will tell. I