The Wedding Files: DUDE, YOU'RE SUED!

[gramps]

With your luck the judge will be related to the bride and groom...............

[billsh]

Bloo, Man this is worse than the commercial interruptions on daily soaps. Don't just leave us hanging waiting to find out "Who shot JR?" For all we know, your typing from prison as we speak.

[IndyJeff]

After reading the above post I would rather take a seat in an electric chair for a juice test before I would do another wedding.

[RichardtheSane]

Eagerly awaiting part two

[confirming my belief that the majority of the wedding photographers fees are indeed danger money]

[gramps]

YEA!!!!!!!!!! the good guy wins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[defordphoto]

Cool! Can I do weddings too? :shock:

Not enough money on the planet exists for me to do weddings.

I love it when the judge said: "It was just a wedding, folks. It wasn't a moon landing." Beautiful!!

You ought to make that your tagline.

Congratulations!

[RichardtheSane]

Good story
Good Judge
Good job they didn't win
Good thing you shared that

[what was I saying about danger money ;) ]

[robertwgross]

Where I am, we got a convenient arrangement going a couple of years ago for weddings. One guy shoots film, and one guy shoots digitally. One kind of backs up the other that way. In the event that there is some sudden emergency or one photographer is detained for any reason, the other can basically shoot the whole thing. That makes for a convenient insurance policy.

---Bob Gross---

[rick barclay]

You should sue them for illegally recording your telephone conversations.
Then you could write another report on that here for our amusement.
You're a very funny guy.

[Tom W]

Another great read from Bloo Dog. Man, you really ought to consider writing a book. You've got plenty of wedding photography experiences, that's for certain.

[IndyJeff]

Bloo Dog, if I were you I would see the local prosecutor about them taping my conversations without my knowledge. I mean why not? Hell man they were looking to stick it to you in a big way, why not make them sweat a little looking at some jail time. Wonder how they would like to spend an anniversary in the hole, away from each other.

Oh and if the MOB & FOB show up at their trial just greet them and remind them how bad Karma can bite you in the as* when you least expect it.

[PhotosGuy]

No matter what I do, I always feel better when I stop doing it-- (Dogbert)
Dilbert -"Lately, the only thing keeping me from becoming a serial killer is my distaste for manual labor."
Dogbert - "You're preaching to the choir."
Way to go! One of life's "little learning experiences"! Look on the bright side. It could only have been worse if you'd been shooting for a relative, something I'll never do again! ;-)

[transcend]

Great story. Good to see greedy bastards like this finally come out on the loosing end, good stuff.

My cousin's wedding photographer from August died 2 days after the wedding..wonder if they will ever see the photos???

[tbfoto]

As someone who is just really getting going in the wedding buisness this is really scarry. I started doing weddings just about two years ago and the one thing I had to learn is that you have to expect the unexpected. Not one that I have done so far has gone according to plan. I learned very quickly that it was alot more work than I had thought. I've not had a "Bridezilla" yet (knock on wood) but I know there is one out there just lurking, and waiting. All I can do is do everything in my power to to my job the best I know how and hope. I've always had thoughts of what happens if I get really really sick the night before or have a flat tire on the way or.....or...or...wow this COULD get real ugly. lol :lol:

Tom

[Belmondo]

Oh, I could write a book. In fact, I've often thought about doing just that.

My wife and I owned a real estate brokerage in Silicon Valley for twenty-some years, and litigation was an everyday fact of life. We gleefully retired almost five years ago, in large part because of the legal exposure that made us fret for our economic lives almost every day we went to work. People can and will sue for just about anything they can because they honestly believe that this is a legitimate extension of the free enterprise system. Even minor grievances are seen as sufficient justification to go back after the fact and demand compensation beyond all reason, whether warranted or not.

Rarely were the lawsuits the result of any actual impropriety on the part of one of our agents; they were much more likely the result of either hidden defects in the property, or unresolved disputes between buyer and seller.

Unlike Bloo Dog's case which was resolved in small claims court, we were always sued in amounts sufficient to warrant filing the case in Superior Court ($10,000 or more). Lawyers were always involved, and in all our twenty-odd years, we never went to trial. Our errors and omissions carrier would always setlle the case for exactly the amount of our deductible, $3,500.00. They never lost a dime on us in spite of dozens of lawsuits.

Attorneys know this. Their first question always is, "Do you have insurance." They will always tell the plaintiff they think he has a good case. Then, when the client agrees, they file suit, and later advise them to take the token settlement because they really don't have much of a case. The settlement is usually just enough to cover their bill. They file outlandish suits knowing that eventually, someone will pay money just for the nuisance value. The plaintiff gets little or nothing, and the lawyer has collected a moderate fee for doing little more than filing a complaint which was largely fiction.

Only one time did one of our agents actually do something that was actionable in my opinion, and that one was settled with just an apology. As it turns out, the client actually gained from the agent's actions, and was not damaged.

A few years ago, the county bar association where we were in business put on a seminar which was open to the general public. It was titled, "How To Sue a Real Estate Broker." The general thesis was that even if nothing goes wrong ---if the agent has done everything perfectly--- you should still sue him/her because your chances of collecting money are far better than 50/50.

The judge in Bloo Dog's case was refreshingly honest and candid. I'm sure this sort of thing goes on more than we'd care to admit. The best (and only) defense against it is to make sure everything is spelled out and agreed to in advance, and to document everything you can, especially for problems incurred along the way that have been caused by the customer.

In a way, Bloo Dog is fortunate the client chose to file four separate cases in small claims court. If they had lumped it into an aggregate claim of $16,000, he would most certainly have ended up in a different court with different rules of evidence, and very likely would have had to hire an attorney at a minimum cost of many hundreds of dollars just to file a response. He also would have likely gone against a much better prepared adversary with legal representation of their own.

The whole legal situation is a mess. As you might have gathered, I'm a big advocate of torte reform.

Glad Bloo Dog's story had a happy ending. It's too bad he can't go back against them seeking compensation for all the anxiety this sort of crap creates.

[IndyJeff]

From 91-97 I was a repair agent for Universal Rundle, the bathtub manufacturer. If I went into someones home or on the phone they mentioned suing anybody, that was it. I was out of the equation. You would be surprised at how many times people would chase me out to my van after they said they were going to sue somebody if this damage wasn't fixed. To begin with damage is not covered by the manufacturers warranty. But as soon as I herad the S word, I walked. Would then call the manufacturer and tell them the guy is talking suing somebody and I am outta here. They alwasy said "Ok".

Now to address something Belmondo said

A few years ago, the county bar association where we were in business put on a seminar which was open to the general public. It was titled, "How To Sue a Real Estate Broker." The general thesis was that even if nothing goes wrong ---if the agent has done everything perfectly--- you should still sue him/her because your chances of collecting money are far better than 50/50.

That is the sole reason why we should have a loser pays system. If you want to sue me fine but, if I win you pay my attorney fees. That would put a halt to the frivolous lawsuits and the attitude that "Hey whatcha got to lose?"


Then Bloo Dog wrote
I've turned down clients who came to see my portfolio and then hinted at future litigation if things turn out badly. Some folks go looking for opportunities.



If a client mentioned the word sue, attorney, legal ramifications or anything close to it, I would stand up, thank them for coming by and ask them to leave my studio. When they wondered what the problem was I would tell them to find someone who doesn't mind going to court over a wedding. Escort them to the door and lock it behind them.....open the door and ask for my business card back before they got to their car too.

[Moppie]

Wow, what a terriable experiance to go though Bloo Dog, very good of you to share it.

Here in NZ the legal system is a little differnt, the case would never have even been heard in the samll claims court, it would have been considered frivolous. They would only have any claim if you hadn't shown up at all, then refused to refund the deposit.


And if you showed up to my wedding imediatly after someone in your close family had just died I would send you straight home again, its a testament to your proffesionalism that you showed up at all.

[charlesu]

Dirty stuff all these lawsuits. A friend of mine and several of her co-workers were working for a very prominent hair salon and day spa here in town. One day they all got notice that everyone was being moved from the current compensation plan to a very mediocre hourly wage. My friend and the other strong stylists decided it was time for them to go out on their own. I shot her picture for some local ads as she was forbidden to tell clients directly that she was moving to a new salon.

Shortly after informing management that she was leaving (several of the girls did this) they were all slapped with lawsuits for violating the agreement not to steal clients. They were not. They were all doing it by the book. What the salon did NOT know about my friend is that her dad is a senior partner and a very tough litigation specialist with the city's largest legal firm.

I don't know the technical details but I do know that this had a happy ending for the stylists.

Her dad filed countersuits on behalf of Beth and each of her friends. He then let the salon owners know that his depostions would likely take weeks (implying that he would see that it took long enough that it shut the salon down). I'm sure there's more to the story but this was the gist I got later. Whatever his threat in response was and however he presented it he got what he and the girls wanted.

All of the original suits were dropped. And, the salon had to pay for the legal fees of the firm which my friend's dad then passed on to the girls as a gift to help them all get started on their own.

[PhotosGuy]

Mother Crab and her daughter Crabletta. :-) :-) :-)

[Bruce Hamilton]

Actually, her name is Crabella. :lol: :rolleyes:

[Qweevox]

We have to do something about this. We are drowning in litigation. Its simple really adopt a looser pays law. If someone wants to sues and they loose then they should be required to pay the tax payers back for the court cost and the defendant’s legal fees as well as 10% of the total lawsuit to the defendant for the trouble of defense. If someone sues and they win then the looser has to pay back the tax-payers for their expense. In this case, the defendant would have received $1,600 for his trouble and the plaintiff would have paid the court’s cost. .

I would not have given the plaintiff a single shot taken. If they want them let them pay. I would agree that some sort of discount was in order, as tragic as your situation was the customer shouldn’t be entirely responsible, but you should have been able to recoup at least your cost if not your time.

I wonder how many lawsuits would be filed. My two cents

[MT]

This is nearly too close to a political discussion (so of course I wander in and make it more so).

That said, I believe advocating loser pays rules demonstrates an oversimplification of the problem. For small or personal lawsuits it may be applicable, for larger or corporate lawsuits it would result is valid suits not being filed.

We are a litigous society, the solution is not simple or straight forward.

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."
-- Albert Einstein

[Belmondo]

We are a litigous society, the solution is not simple or straight forward.


Especially when lawyers (who benefit most from this situation) are making the rules. So many of our lawmakers are in the pocket of the Trial Lawyers Association or are lawyers themselves. It astounds me that so many people can't see through this.

[Lisard]

I am going to put it on my website and on my profile on the web "I DON'T DO WEDDINGS!!!!" ( because I usually have as much luck as you described in your story :)
I enjoyed reading your post! Thanks!

[Skinner]

It appears that my decision to avoid weddings (both personally and professionally) has been a good one.

I would have been in a criminal court facing 25 - Life!!


Andm Bloo Dog....... Very sorry for the loss of your family member.

[Big_B]

This is nearly too close to a political discussion (so of course I wander in and make it more so).

That said, I believe advocating loser pays rules demonstrates an oversimplification of the problem. For small or personal lawsuits it may be applicable, for larger or corporate lawsuits it would result is valid suits not being filed.

We are a litigous society, the solution is not simple or straight forward.

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."
-- Albert Einstein
Without wanting to start a political debate, I think you make a good point. As ever, there are two sides to the debate.

[Bodryn]

Frivolous lawsuits like mentioned above sound like something out of The Twilight Zone. What a nightmare!

I removed the rest of my message as it was inappropriate to this forum.

[IndyJeff]

Nobody is trying, or advocating, taking away your day in court. What is being tried is a reform where dipsticks who spill scalding hot coffee on their package while driving will think twice before they try to sue the restuarant and the chain because of his/her own stupidity.

Back in the 80's there was a guy who put a ladder up beside his barn and began to climb it, paint brush in hand. The ladder is securely anchored in a pile of cow dung. Guy gets up about 15 feet and the pressure on the bottom of the ladder causes it to slip in the pile of dung. Who is at fault? Well according to a jury of 12 geniuses, the ladder company because they didn't have a warning label on the ladder. Another case of a shallow gene pool winning in a court of law.

Until the loser pays system is instilled, idiots who can't accept responsibility for their own stupidity will continue to drive the cost of business insurance up. Who pays for that? If you just said the business, I am afriad you are on the short list for the village idiot award.

Granted there are times when a business needs to be sued, in cases of their negligence regarding their product but, come on people, you have to use some common sense.

In the case that started this whole thread, Bloo Dog having copies of the invoices the plantiffs had as well as the previous invoices showing the order well before Christmas should have blown their case right out of the water. Seeing how they were selectivly producing evidence and suppressing damaging evidence is a violation of the basic principles of our justice system.

[Bodryn]

Indy, I could discuss this with you in the chat forum maybe. However you sound very angry - it might prove unfruitful right now. I think everybody wants fair justice. However every human has a different perspective. :(

[IndyJeff]

On the contrary Boydrn I am not angry at all. Altho I will admit, frivolous lawsuits do give a noticable rise in my blood pressure sometimes.

When consumers realize that these frivolous lawsuits are coming out of their pockets, then and maybe only then will there be more of a call to control them.

I once heard a guy say that he was going to sue the city because he crashed his bicycle after hitting a piece of concrete that had risen up from frost heave the winter before. Seems he broke his leg and a wrist if I remember correctly. When I asked him why he wanted to sue the city his response was that they should take care of the sidewalks. I asked him if he lived in that neighborhood and he stated he did. I then asked if he reported the sidewalk to the DPW. He said he didn't but that wasn't his job LOL I then asked him if he sued the city and was successful who would pay. His answer...."well the city of course". I then had to point out the city doesn't have any money. It comes from the citizens. He grumbled and I kind of left it alone after that. Don't know if he ever did or not.

There is another case which is still in litigation in which a guy was riding his bicycle at night on the sidewalk along a 4 lane city street here in Indy. He approaches a scaffolding which had been erected that day in preperation for a marathon race the next day. Instead of looking to see if any cars were coming he just pulled right out in the street and was struck by a car. Poor guy, and I do mean that, is permanately disabled. So now he is trying to sue the contarctor that erected the scaffolding, the event organizer, the company hired to make the event safe, and the driver of the car.
When asked in a deposition if he could have stopped his bike he stated he could have.
Now do you think anyone should pay for his mistake, besides him?

[MT]

The coffee suit is one that is frequently cited as a particularly bad example - however it's incorrectly used as an example.

There was elderly woman who spilled coffee on herself and won a $2.9 million jury verdict against McDonald's. If the story ended there all would be good, however...

The woman in question required skin grafts, spent weeks in the hospital, offered to settle for $10,000 (basically the medical cost incurred). She only sued as a last resort---the epitome of conscientious use of the legal system. Her original award of $2.9 million was later reduced by a judge, as most such judgements are, to $480,000, and she wound up settling for even less. To prevent other suits, McDonald's, which had previously ignored more than 700 similar complaints, stopped serving near-boiling coffee, as did its competitors.

[Ballen Photo]

Bloo Dog, I read this whole scenario, parts 1 & 2, and WOW! It's SCARY out there. :shock:
I'm glad you prevailed. :D (I would have probably had the stroke.)
Thanks for sharing this story, as this could happen to anybody, and is one aspect that someone thinking about starting a business of wedding photography be aware of. In fact, I think you should publish this story, and it should be required reading for aspiring wedding photographers. :rolleyes:
-Bruce

[Tom W]

Bloo Dog, I read this whole scenario, parts 1 & 2, and WOW! It's SCARY out there. :shock:
I'm glad you prevailed. :D (I would have probably had the stroke.)
Thanks for sharing this story, as this could happen to anybody, and is one aspect that someone thinking about starting a business of wedding photography be aware of. In fact, I think you should publish this story, and it should be required reading for aspiring wedding photographers. :rolleyes:
-Bruce

It should be required reading for anybody that wants to start a business.

[Qweevox]

OK, I really did join this board to talk about photography, not politics, but this does have an affect on professional photography as well as every other business out there.

I think a looser pays law would cause people to think twice about filing a lawsuit. The way the system works now is the plaintiff has nothing to loose unless the defendant counter sues and wins. When governments or businesses are sued, we all pay. It’s kind of like the lottery though, the plaintiff figures if he plays he might win the jackpot. The attorneys don’t care they work on commission, I know that’s not what they call it but that’s what it is. In most cases, they work for a percentage of the potential winnings and that’s usually a hefty win of 33%-40% of the total award. The system is crazy.

Our business insurance, malpractice insurance, liability insurance, not to mention product cost are all inflated because of our system. If we keep churning out attorneys and keep our present system we are in for a huge crash.

The courts should be the final solution, not the primary solution. A looser pays law is the answer.

That’s may last political statement….I’m stepping off my soapbox.

[Ballen Photo]

OK, I really did join this board to talk about photography, not politics, but this does have an affect on professional photography as well as every other business out there.

Our business insurance, malpractice insurance, liability insurance, not to mention product cost are all inflated because of our system. If we keep churning out attorneys and keep our present system we are in for a huge crash.

The courts should be the final solution, not the primary solution. A looser pays law is the answer.

That’s may last political statement….I’m stepping off my soapbox.Ed, I agree with most of what you say here, and I totally agree that folks that try to "Strike it RICH" via lawsuits are the scum of the Earth, while costing our society millions, or even billions, but didn't they enact a law against frivolous law suits? I feel that would be the better answer. I DO think there are sittuations that simply cannot be resolved without a law suit.
We had this brought up in Nevada in the recent election about how Doctors are leaving due to excessive insurance costs, which was a DIRECT byproduct of excessive law suits. I truley wish I had all the answers. :rolleyes:
-Bruce

[MT]

Sheesh...once we get started?

With regard to doctors, insurance and lawsuits...if that were accurate insurance costs should be much lower in states that have caps on awards but they aren't.

[MT]

Ed, an error in your logic , while it's true the plaintiff has nothing to lose, lawyers do. While I'm not a big fan of them, the majority of them are not stupid - representing a client on a contingency basis entails a fair amount of risk on their part. The vast majority of them are not going to invest their time, and resources on cases that don't have a reasonable expectation of winning.

[IndyJeff]

Sheesh...once we get started?

With regard to doctors, insurance and lawsuits...if that were accurate insurance costs should be much lower in states that have caps on awards but they aren't.


MT you don't think insurance losses are followed by rate increases? Boy I wish you were right. After the hurricane which hit Florida a couple of years ago my homeowners insurance more than doubled. When I confronted my agent with this, his answer was that losses incurred from the hurricane called for rate increases across the board to keep the company solvent. He did assure me that my rates would in all likelyhood go down in 2-4 years. Well then we had hurricanes again this year. Now in his defense after Andrew in 91 the rate did go up but about 3 years later it went down again to a little more than what it was before. I know this is homeowners and not doctors but, if a state has caps on awards their insurance premiums will still be considered to help pay for states where there are no caps.

This does directly affect photographers and their insurance too. As more claims are filed and payed out, the rates will only increase to cover the insurance losses. Same with any other type insurance.
If wedding photographers start getting sued because young couples think it is easy money, the rates for covering you shooting weddings will go up to cover the loss by the carrier.

[IndyJeff]

Ed, an error in your logic , while it's true the plaintiff has nothing to lose, lawyers do. While I'm not a big fan of them, the majority of them are not stupid - representing a client on a contingency basis entails a fair amount of risk on their part. The vast majority of them are not going to invest their time, and resources on cases that don't have a reasonable expectation of winning.


LOL MT don't mean to be picking on you but, there are some lawyers who will take a case under any circumstances and hope for an out-of-court settlement. Little time involved and if they can settle for 25% of a multi million suit, that is still a hell of a paycheck.
I once had a lawyer ask me after an auto accident if I took the $10,000 ambulance ride. He explained that if I had any kind of pain whatsoever, take the ride because the insurance company will almost always settle for $10,000 even if there is no injury. About $3500 goes to the hospital for the ride and tests and Dr's fees. The lawyer gets $3000 and the rest goes to me.

[Tom W]

If the legal profession weren't such a lucrative means of "earning" a living, we wouldn't be graduation so many lawyers every year. Its easy money - don't let them kid you.

[MT]

Indy, I never feel picked on. The problem with discussions such as this is precisely what I stated originally - things are simplified too far.

Take your homeowners example - insurance companies rates are tied to loss rates, but where do insurance companies make their money from - not premiums, but investments. Believe it or not, the stock market has as more of an effect on premium rates than claims.

Additionally, insurance companies are reasonably good at determining risk - they segregate the market as much as they can. Young drivers pay higher rates than middle age ones, smokers pay more than non-smokers, but doctors pay the same rate even when damages are capped in the state they practice.

From your "other" message - I said the "vast" majority of lawyers - obviously ambulance chasers exist. But your other example? Multimillion dollar settlements for little or no work? What companies or individuals are going to toss away millions of dollars on a case that has no merit? As litigious as we are, those being sued have access to lawyers as well, right?

[Claire]

I have to admit it, every time I read about people sueing each other in the US I can't help but jump for joy I live in Sweden... LOL

My friend told me how her American family had a big reunion last summer. The grandmother hired a "pro" to take group shots of them. Turns out the photographer (female) came late, her camera was broken (they had to lend her one of theirs) and rather seemed to spent her time chatting with those who were musicians. They had to drag her to bring out her camera, and as the woman had been chatting for long the sun was slowly setting. Then she began to complain about the light and of course she didn't have any flash with her. When she finally began to take pictures she suddenly decided that it'd be nice for the guests to have individual shots/only a few in the pictures. The group told her, fine, but the group shots are the most important.

It all ended up that the "pro" got tired of doing individual shots in the middle, so some had their picture taken, others not. There weren't that many group shots taken and my friend said the photos came very late and looked worse than something they could have taken with a P&S. The thought of sueing was there, but nobody could be bothered and just refused to pay for the pictures.

[trustwoody]

WOW what a great post and the replies bring much light to the situation. I have concluded that lawsuits don't follow breaches in the law they follow money. You don't see homeless people getting sued. So the secret is don't accumulate money.

On the serious side, we have no way of verifying all the facts in this case and I know this forum is not replacing the court system. I can see that Bloodog offered this story out of a sense of charity to his peers. Thank you bloodog. In some ways what I would contribute to this discussion is not as much related to the "business" as much as it is looking ahead. I have a sort of a mental (and moral) image of this party that sued and I have seen people like this over a long term in various contexts. Living like this is not free. It is not like you can spin the lottery wheel and maybe you will strike it rich. Perhaps in the short gain you will but living like this does come at a cost. When money becomes more imporant that people for your life it has a long term result that people in your life will leave you alone as time progresses on. This is no small matter. I don't look forward to how one relative of mine died. He was very wealthy and missed caring for his family in a big way. When he was diagnosed with cancer and nearing the end. His lawyer and him along with his family (wife and kids) met and one kid asked the lawyer (not his Dad who was sitting right there) how long it would be after "he" died before he would receive the money. I am making a moral judgement based on the fact that they seemed to have no sympathy toward the previous events of day of the wedding. I could tell other stories that back up what I am saying here but I will hold off and say only in this situation the best thing in my opinion is to take the high road. The odd thing is that someone like Bloodog is the exact type of person that I want to do business with in any situation. We think in America (and I am sure in varying degrees, everywhere) that we can just buy our way to happiness and if someone dares to keep us from our "happiness" we sue the low down #@#$%*&#! Living here allows that course if we choose but every road leads somewhere and that person thinks that having a fistful of money will bring them their lost happiness. It is predictable that when they win their "lottery" they will be fighting amongst themselves. Kissing your wife before you go to bed is sweet enough revenge knowing that you understand one of the greatest things about life! I just hope that you were not serious about saying that you hope to die in your sleep. Your kind would be sorely missed. May your tribe increase.

KL

[IndyJeff]

What companies or individuals are going to toss away millions of dollars on a case that has no merit? As litigious as we are, those being sued have access to lawyers as well, right?

Yeah they have access and many times they settle rather than fight it because the cost of litigation would be higher than what they can settle for. An example is Bill Clinton settling with Paula Jones. He did not admit guilt, nor claim innocence, he merely settled out of court because it was cheaper in the long run.

Before anyone starts in on me about using Clinton, it is not meant politically. It is just a recent case I could recall to stress my point. In fact when I heard the suit had been dropped and a settlement had been arranged I thought that was a right move.

MT as far as a lot of the other stuff you posted, yeah I knew that too and agree with you on about all of it about the insurance and where they make thier money.

[scubafly]

Thanks for sharing your story Bloo Dog. I'm floored at the lack of compassion the wedding party had for the death in your family. Reading this thread made me wonder how many of you professional photographers (in the USA) have joined PPA for the malpractice insurance.

[pradeep1]

There is no end to the competition at the bottom.

True words spoken. Can apply this to any business.

[dewmuw]

I got an ulcer just reading that!

Good to hear that things turned out in the end, but the stress must have been immense.

[leony]

1) Incorporate. It's not free, but well worth it for the peace of mind.
2) Get a $1M liability insurance for $600/year.

In NJ many reception venues will not let a photographer in if they can't provide a certificate of insurance for 1M. It's a business expense.

In regard to recording conversations - that's the law in just about every state right now. You just need to pass on the info to the local D.A. and they'll take care of the rest - no cost on your part.

[vcutag]

I once heard a guy say that he was going to sue the city because he crashed his bicycle after hitting a piece of concrete that had risen up from frost heave the winter before. Seems he broke his leg and a wrist if I remember correctly. When I asked him why he wanted to sue the city his response was that they should take care of the sidewalks. I asked him if he lived in that neighborhood and he stated he did. I then asked if he reported the sidewalk to the DPW. He said he didn't but that wasn't his job LOL I then asked him if he sued the city and was successful who would pay. His answer...."well the city of course". I then had to point out the city doesn't have any money. It comes from the citizens. He grumbled and I kind of left it alone after that. Don't know if he ever did or not.

As a cyclist, this kind of thing really peeves me... I don't know about Indianapolis, but in Richmond, it's against the law to ride your bike on a sidewalk if the wheel is more than 20" (basically allowing kids bikes, but not adults.) To me, the fact that he was even on the sidewalk to begin with is the issue. Then again, when I gripe about this to fellow students, the answer I get is usually a blank stare and "But the cops do it!"

[Mitch]

Bloo Dog,
Your last post made it seem as though it is as simple as falling down if you are a very good photographer, that all you have to do is charge high prices and then you will get plenty of business because there isn't much competition at the top. That's not true . By the way, how does one catch the attention "of the people that are willing to pay high prices for top service"? That's the real challenge. That is, how does one find the upper end client. I don't believe it is as simple as being good, then raising prices. There is the "marketing" to them that is the trick. Do you have the "easy answer" to the marketing question? OK, what is the answer, Bloo Dog?

[Belmondo]

Bloo Dog,
Your last post made it seem as though it is as simple as falling down if you are a very good photographer, that all you have to do is charge high prices and then you will get plenty of business because there isn't much competition at the top. That's not true . By the way, how does one catch the attention "of the people that are willing to pay high prices for top service"? That's the real challenge. That is, how does one find the upper end client. I don't believe it is as simple as being good, then raising prices. There is the "marketing" to them that is the trick. Do you have the "easy answer" to the marketing question? OK, what is the answer, Bloo Dog?

Mitch:
I've read BlooDog's last two posts in this thread and don't see where he says anything like that. What am I missing?

[rnorth6920]

This was fun to read. Glad everything turned out okay.

[dshootist]

to start off with, i haven't read through all of the threads (most) and no one has said they're sorry to hear of your loss. that kind of saddens me. this may have been a while back, but please accept my condolences nonetheless.

i've only been in the wedding photo game a couple of years now so my opinion my not stand for much throughout this conversation. i do know, however, that there are people on this planet that, no matter what they receive, it will never be enough (insert witty analogy here). being a relatively new person to the industry, i'm always sweating the horror stories i hear about people and things that can and do go wrong. it sounds like you have a successful business venture (sketchy vendors aside) and are a sound, honest person to boot. my opinion is to be happy that the capital hemorrhage was stemmed by a practical judge, a few strokes of overzealousness by the plaintiffs and that occasionally the law will work for justice.

[rssfhs]

After reading your incredible story, all I can say is thank God I'm an amateur!

[GerryDavid]

1) Incorporate. It's not free, but well worth it for the peace of mind.
2) Get a $1M liability insurance for $600/year.

What exactly is incorporate?

I plan to do weddings in the future, hopefully near future. These stories are concerning though. But hopefully if I do my best effort, and be insurred, everything should work out fine.

I plan to have some insurrance for the weddings. One for my gear incase something happens to it or gets stolen. And also the liability insurrance incase something happens to the pictures or to anyone in the wedding party. So if something drastic happens like somone steals the cameras and memory cards of all the pictures, I wont have to pay for flying everyone back in to recreate the wedding.

Is the $600 a year the cheapest they offer? At first I may only do a wedding or two a year and that $600 would probably take up any profit there is from doing 1. Hopefully there would be a per wedding option.

What insurrance companies does everyone use? I plan to do the weddings in the VA area.

[Persian-Rice]

GerryDavid, read up on incorporating/corporations etc etc.

You basically protect yourself from any personal liablility. But it has its downsides..............

[MageProductions.com]

All this is... unbelievable.

My weddings are sold under a simple contract, which states that my services are provided on a "best effort" basis AND specify the (sole) remedy for failure to preform, which is a refund.

I watch them, very carefully, as they read the contract. THAT is when I decide if I want to work with them. If they have a problem with the clauses that protect me I smile, collect my papers, and WALK OUT.

This keeps me from WAKING IN, to a court room .)

[PhotosGuy]

Regarding lab screw-ups: look at the terms of contract into which you enter when you drop off your film/cf card to the lab: We are limited in liability to the replacement of the film only... blah... blah... blah.... Just as an aside note, no one from here will do that without backing it up first, right?

[Deckyon]

Just another story to back up my reason for NOT doing weddings.

[GerryDavid]

there are always those clients who want the product in x number of days. I always charged extra for a two-week turnaround. If they paid for the fast turnaround but I couldn't comply with the terms due to lab failure, and they were headed to Hawaii to visit relatives, I wasn't about to overnight the whole proof book across the Pacific.

What was your normal turn around and how much did you charge for a 2 week turn around?

If thre was a lab mishap and you werent able to deliver on time, how did you resolve that?

[Mannytkd]

Bloo dog....i had tears i my eyes i'm not kidding i felt for you after reading the whole thing, the human being race can really be very cruel especially when it comes to people..."trying it on"...the judge was best friend on the day and also sounded really 'p.....f' with what they were trying to achieve, 'ha' i did'nt work did it...? 'ha....';)

Sorry for the 'HA'.....i'm just angry for you.

[Mannytkd]

.......GOOD.......there's no sympathey there then is there......!!!:lol:

Thanks for the support. My anger is directed toward the other photographers who encouraged the couple to take me to court. There's a LOT of this sort of back stabbing among a certain kind of photographer. I attribute the behavior to immaturity and the fact that so many photographers enter the commercial arena ill-equipped for the profession. They have the cameras, they have the lights, but they don't have the necessary dedication to their community or to their profession. They start a business, flounder around, muddy the waters and then disappear after they've badmouthed almost all of their competitors.

Or worse, they remain on the periphery of the industry for years and years as lab workers and occasional assistants, develop a clientele, work for a fraction of what the pros work for and do things to ruin the local market.

Their behavior is self-limiting, fortunately. One of the two photographers who encouraged the couple to take me to court was the target of at least one lawsuit (for defamation). He is now out of legitimate business. The other photographer now has problems with the tax collector.

I didn't even have to do anything. What went around came around.

[yvettevil]

Can't believe I sat for 8mins reading this!! But it's all... goooood!!!
Glad you won the case!

Do I still want to pursue my dream of becoming a photographer?

Take care Bloo.

[yvettevil]

p.s.

and my condolences to you and your family... :-(

[rdenney]

Look on the bright side. It could only have been worse if you'd been shooting for a relative, something I'll never do again! ;-)

Last year, and the tender age of 48, my oldest friend decided to finally get married. He (dread, dread) asked me to shoot the wedding for him.

I forced him (and his wife) to sign a contract, which read:

1.) I'm doing this because you guys need photos for your wedding and you can't afford to pay a working pro.

2.) I'm not doing this on a professional basis and therefore have no professional responsibilities. I will accept no money.

3.) I'm not a working pro, but I am a klutz, and things may go wrong.

4.) Even if all I produce are excuses and you never see picture one, you hereby certify and agree that you will remain my oldest and best friend and not hold it against me.

Even with that agreement in place, I sweated bullets. I had two Pentax 645's, a Canon 10D (mine) and a Nikon D100 (my wife's). I also made some set images with an Exakta 66. Every picture was taken twice, with two cameras and two photographers. The film was bought in two lots and used to back up the other. Batteries were all fresh.

We made 500 images--easily twice what I would have made back when I did weddings commerically.

We actually lost a roll of film, despite having a deeply ingrained procedure for keeping track of them. But my friend never knew it was lost because of the redundancy.

Nobody was happier than me to deliver a finished album that looked good.

When you consider the cost of film, prints, amortization of equipment, album materials, cleaning bills, and therapy sessions, my wedding present to my friend (who was expecting to pay for my materials) came to something like $3000. And that didn't consider my time.

Weddings are tough, man. There's no way I would do them commercially again.

Rick "who did weddings 25 years ago and got so burned out that no photography was possible for about five years" Denney

[Rob612]

There's a LOT of this sort of back stabbing among a certain kind of photographer.

What to say ? I am a single person that has incorporated as you did, but in a different sector (I'm in the telco business as a consultant). I believe - and I hate the habit !!! - that backstabbing is a common problem from the small professional to big enterprise.

I hate it, but I'm afraid that we all that are somehow self employee will have to learn to live with it.

To be honest, at 44 and being self employed since when I was 19, I haven't learned yet :(

I definitely sympathize with you.

[PhotosGuy]

That's a great contract, Rick!

[jjmcge]

I think I will stick to taking pictures of flowers and frogs...

John

[Matatazela]

I nearly got an ulcer just reading this post!

This illustrates an important point: DOCUMENT EVERYTHING!!!

When you talk on the phone, document it. When you fax / email something, document it. When you do a reconnaisance of the venue, document it.

The facts often persuade people not to take things before a judge, as long as everything you have done is within industry standard parameters.

[Titus213]

Great read. I've been asked to do weddings and have done them as an amateur and given the B&G the pictures and the negatives just to be done with it. It's really interesting that just two nights ago I was sitting with a friend who is a wedding coordinator (and who wants us to do weddings) and I asked what you do if there is a death in the family. In our case there are 4 people involved and 3 of us shoot so we should have some backup.

As to your dismay at the 'help' your business friends gave I have seen this recently in helping a friend get a business off the ground. It seems so many business are so quick to sink the new guy. It amazed me in the machine business and it sounds more common than I would have thought. That's too bad. At any rate, I'm going to send this link to my other business partners so they know what we are getting into.

And I really like you attitude about it all Bloo Dog. You are right, what goes around comes around and it generally doesn't take all that long.

And I am not a calm enough person politically to get into that argument. Suffice it to say something has got to be done. Open your local telephone directory and see how many photographers are listed. Then slip over to the attorney section. Shakespeare was right!

[PhotosGuy]

Alternately, I'd advertise in small backwoods nickel newspapers and shoot rural weddings for people who might not be able to afford a photographer otherwise. At this stage in my life, I am more interested in unique images and human interaction than money. I'd rethink that if I were you! The FOB & assorted "kissing cousins" all carrying shotguns? Now that's a "unique image of human interaction", isn't it? :D:D:D

[PhotosGuy]

Sounds GREAT! I just hope that you're around to write about it after! :D:D:D

[shoot_a_star]

Bloo and others:

I love all your stories. They are all educational. Do you guys think that we can come up with a lengthly contract to protect our butts 100% from being sued? I mean is it possible to state in the contract that "under any circumstance (picture quality, showing late, or not showing up in case of emergency, but not hitting the FOB and the MOB :) ) that the customer can't sue the photographer. " ? Anyone had this kind of contract or similar signed before?