Okay, long story short. At a wedding a person was video taping. Anyway a guy accidentially knocked over the tri-pod which the video camera was resting on and damaged the video camera. The person who owns the video camera now wants the guy who knocked it over to pay $300.00 in repairs. The person who knocked it over claims it was an accident, he apoligized but said he is not willing to pay as it was an accident, and it could of happened to anyone. Who do you think/know is right in this case?
Thanks
2006-12-15 06:29:51 · 23 answers · asked by Disney Dreamer 3 in Family & Relationships ➔ Weddings
The person who owns the camera should have been right there with it, or paid someone to keep an eye on it. It was an accident.
2006-12-15 06:33:32 · answer #1 · answered by Jennifer Lu22 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It was an accident. I don't think even morally that the person that knocked it over needs to pay for the repairs. It would be exceptionally nice of him if he did pay repairs, but the owner of the video camera is out of line, in my opinion, to demand repair money. It's his property, he should be more careful with it. Buy a more stable tripod, one weighted at the bottom and difficult to knock over. There were alot of precautions the owner could have taken.
It would be different if the video camera was borrowed by the person that damaged it, but that's not the case.
2006-12-15 06:36:35 · answer #2 · answered by sovereign_carrie 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Without seeing exactly what happened, I would say each person pays half. It was an accident but that's why we have car insurance and home owner's insurance, etc. How was the camera knocked over? Was the videographer minding his camera, or did he step away from it? Was the camera in a corner out of the traffic path or near the dancefloor? Was the tripod firm or wobbly? Was the camera firmly on the tripod? Was the guest drunk? Was he involved in horseplay near the camera?
The courts would assign what's called "contributory negligence". It means that both parties assume some fault for the accident.
2006-12-16 13:29:41 · answer #3 · answered by Inquiring Mind 19 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It will wind up in small claims court if it is pursued. If you accidentally dent someones fender while you are driving you pay for the repair. An accident doesn't absolve you from owing the money. The damages may be lessened if the owner of the camera left it in a place that could be assumed to be dangerous, like the middle of an aisle, or on the dance floor. Make sure the damages actually amounted to $300, and then the person who did the damage should pay.
2006-12-15 09:07:51 · answer #4 · answered by justa 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If the guy who was video taping was from a company, I am assuming that they have insurance that will cover the repairs for the damaged camera. I would have to say that it was a complete accident, one that was not intended.
Now it would be nice if the guest offers something to help pay for it, but I dont think it is mandatory. If he did it on purpose, he shuold pay for the whole thing.
But like I said, most companies have insurance to cover such losses, if not maybe the two can come to some type of agreement like 1/2 pay on both ends.
If he is froma company, check the contract too, it should state who is liable in the case of damages.
2006-12-15 08:11:09 · answer #5 · answered by glorymomof3 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the videgrapher was in a business it should be covered by insurance.
I'm assuming, since the owner of the camcorder wants the guy who did knock it down to pay for repairs, that he isn't covered by insurance.
I think the guy who knocked it over, accident or not, should pay HALF of the repairs (after seeing the repair bill that is). After all, the videographer left it there unattended, BUT the person who knocked it over wasn't paying attention.
2006-12-16 10:07:52 · answer #6 · answered by Terri 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, if anyone that has a car accident has the excuse that is an accident, then no one would ever get paid for repairs.
You have to undesrtand that the owner of the camera is the person affected by the accident and that he is entitled to restitution or repair money.
An apology is not going to give him his camera back.
Do what's right and pay. He can actually take you to cout over this, plus make you pay legal and court fees. If the person is decent enough not to do that, then be gracious and pay.
Good luck
2006-12-15 07:37:14 · answer #7 · answered by Blunt 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you accidentally broke a window, you would pay for it - if you accidentally rear ended someone in a car, your insurance (you) would pay for it - if you knocked something off the shelf in a store - you pay for it. This is no different. Regardless of the fact that the damage was not intentional, the guy is still the cause of the damage and therefore responsible to at least attempt to make it right. That doesn't mean he goes out and buys the guy a brand new camera - if you want to be truly fair (and if the videographer agrees) I would think this guy should be held liable for the depreciated value of the camera.
2006-12-15 06:40:40 · answer #8 · answered by RRW 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you are driving and you accidentally hit someone's car, you're obligated to pay to have it fixed, even though you never intended to hit their car.
Same principle applies here: even though the guy who knocked over the tripod didn't do it intentionally, it was his action that caused the damage, so I believe he has a legal and moral obligation to pay.
FWIW, I'm pretty sure that if the owner of the video equipment chooses to take the case to small claims court, the judge will rule in his favor. It doesn't matter that there was no intention to cause damage or that it could have happened to anyone.
I'd say the person who did the damage should pay up. (If he has homeowner's insurance, it's likely the insurance will pay for it.)
2006-12-15 07:10:59 · answer #9 · answered by Karin C 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It was an accident. Maybe if they split the cost of the repair it would make everyone happy, but the guy who knocked it over really doesn't have an obligation to do anything. Accidents happen.
2006-12-15 06:34:08 · answer #10 · answered by mayihelpyou 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
well it depends...
what state are you in? In some states (like MD) if the camera owner was at all negligent (i.e. in leaving his camera unattended in the way of the guests), your clumsy friend would NOT have to pay; in some states the camera man would be able to recover based proportionally on the negligence of each party; and in some states, yes your friend would have to pay the $300.
So a lot could depend on how reasonably your friend was acting, regardless of whether it was an accident.
Furthermore, the camera man should have insurance on the camera! If my camera = my life...I would insure it! duh! so morally, no he shouldnt feel like he has to pay!
Tell your friend to tell the camera guy to bug off! He might get taken to small claims court, but the worse that can happen is he will have to pay $300. (no lawyers in small claims, you just tell the judge what happens, the judge determines liability, and you are on your way...camera man pays court costs). Chances are the hassle wouldnt be worth the $300.
2006-12-15 08:58:19 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋