Who should pay?

[tomd]

This didn't happen, but it got me thinking about the possible scenario:

So I was at my Mom's house yesterday (Happy late Mothers Day to all Moms on POTN), and my Mom wanted a few bird shots. So I set up my camera on a tripod in the back yard, pointed at a feeder and set a remote trigger. I went into the house and waited.

About a hour later, my brother let's his dog out the back door, and this little guy goes running around the yard chasing butterflies, etc. He came really close to running into my tripod and potentially knocking it over.

So I got to thinking, if the camera would have been knocked over, broken, etc; who should pay for the repair cost? Me because I am always responsible for my gear and it's care? Or the person (in this case my brother) who let their dog out and the dog hit the tripod?

I can see this happening in say a park where photographers are shooting while dogs are playing etc. I'm sure there are hundreds or similar scenarios.

[Jon]

That's why you carry insurance . . .

[SoaringUSAEagle]

That's why you carry insurance . . .

+1.

And I guess if something like this ended up in court, the judge could rule on their behalf for negligence by you. And vise-versa - the dog owner could be held accountable, but I find that to be less likely due to the dog being within a confined area such as a yard versus being free out in a public park.

Insurance is your best option with gear - always.

[gjl711]

Insurance and judges aside.. you're responsible. If you put your equipment in an area where a mutt can bump it and knock it over you deserve what you got. What if a bird landed on it? Would you sue the bird? Or a gust of wind. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones actions.

[gjl711]

BTW.. I also carry insurance so i guess that puts me into the "don't take responsibility for ones actions" as well. :)

[Woolburr]

You are the only one responsible. You set up the camera and tripod....and chose to leave it unattended.

[P4ulG]

[QUOTE=tomd;10153591]
So I got to thinking, if the camera would have been knocked over, broken, etc; who should pay for the repair cost? Me because I am always responsible for my gear and it's care? Or the person (in this case my brother) who let their dog out and the dog hit the tripod?

Suppose it depends on how big your brother is! Lol!

Paul

[birdfromboat]

No question, a dog owner is responsible for their dog and the destruction they are capable of. I frequent a park where dog owners are warned to keep dogs on a leash, but as soon as they are far enough from the parking lot to be out of sight, off come the leashes.
when one of these loose dogs sets up on me and starts barking, I stand still and wait for the owner to call them off. If I get the chance to talk to them, I tell them that they are being very irresponsible, basically letting the dog make decisions about their financial future for them. I explain to them that if the dog had bit me, they would be liable for damages, lost work, possible extended health care, court costs, etc. And they wouldn't be in court against me, they would be facing my insurer. That sounds scary enough to make them think, I hope.
If it doesn't look like I am getting through, I point out how inexpensive it would be to rent an acre of my farmland from me and give the dog free run on it for a whole year, versus the cost of 1visit to 1 doctor for 1 bandage, 1 time.
The dog owner should pay in this case.

[snyderman]

You are the only one responsible. You set up the camera and tripod....and chose to leave it unattended.

ding, ding, ding! And there you have the correct answer.

dave

[Overread]

Legalities aside its your brother's dog - thus a family matter - and thus you'd have to sort it out yourselves (hint good tripods are hard and heavy ;)). Insurance though is the best approach and helps you avoid nasty situations should an accident happen - especailly if several £/$1000 worth of gear gets damaged in the process!

[gjl711]

No question, a dog owner is responsible for their dog and the destruction they are capable of. I frequent a park where dog owners are warned to keep dogs on a leash, but as soon as they are far enough from the parking lot to be out of sight, off come the leashes.....Surely you are not advocating that a dog remain leashed even on private property as in the OPs case. A public area is a different thing all together.

[tomd]

thanks for the replies.
I agree that insurance is necessary, and should be a part of photography just as a camera bag protects my equipment, so does insurance.

[birdfromboat]

Surely you are not advocating that a dog remain leashed even on private property as in the OPs case. A public area is a different thing all together.
definitely not. I love my dogs and hate leashing them, they have a fenced area at home, they have room to run on my property when I am out there with them and I take them out onto innaccesable (except by boat) Islands and let them run themselves silly regularly.
my point is that no matter where it happens, if I am responsible for puting a loose dog into the situation, I am responsible for it's actions. And if my dog smears my brothers gear at my moms house, I am liable. maybe not in the eyes of my family members, maybe not in the opinions expressed here, but most likely in court, especially if the owner of the gear was insured and the insurance company wants to recoup some of their losses by puting a team of lawyers on me that do this kind of thing everyday.
I am sure that in some places this forum reaches, that's not the case. Here, if my dog wanders onto a public road and a car hits it and kills it, I can be sued for the damage to the car, I have seen it happen. And it wasn't the cars owner doing the suing, it was a big brick insurance company with lawyers OMG!

[gjl711]

....my point is that no matter where it happens, if I am responsible for puting a loose dog into the situation, I am responsible for it's actions. And if my dog smears my brothers gear at my moms house, I am liable. ...Where does liability end? What if i set my camera up in the middle of a busy street or highway and walked away? Are the drivers liable as well or just owners of dogs? It seems like lawyers have sucked the brains out of everyone and common sense is gone.

[Woolburr]

I realize we have gotten sue happy in this country, but there is no way on earth that a dog is going to be held responsible for human stupidity.

[birdfromboat]

Where does liability end? What if i set my camera up in the middle of a busy street or highway and walked away? Are the drivers liable as well or just owners of dogs? It seems like lawyers have sucked the brains out of everyone and common sense is gone.

try it and see. you had better hope your 3000 dollar camera doesn't chip the 500 dollar windsheild of the car that smashes it, cuz if you set it up on a public street, I see you buying a windsheild.

[birdfromboat]

I realize we have gotten sue happy in this country, but there is no way on earth that a dog is going to be held responsible for human stupidity.

I would hate to think my dogs could be held responsible for anything they do, they are dogs after all.
On the other hand, If I am so unaware of the fact that my dog is chasing butterflies near an expensive and easily damaged peice of camera gear, I probably need to be held liable just to wake me up a little and help me understand that I am their caretaker and guardian, just like I was my childrens guardian before they turned 18.

I have no more to say than that. I am responsible for my dogs.

[gjl711]

try it and see. you had better hope your 3000 dollar camera doesn't chip the 500 dollar windsheild of the car that smashes it, cuz if you set it up on a public street, I see you buying a windsheild.Exactly.. I.. The camera owner are 100% responsible for the camera and any damage it might produce. If I leave it unattended and it gets destroyed, stolen, or damaged, I am responsible. I am the bonehead that walked away leaving it where harm could happen.

[Jethro790]

As soon as I saw a dog running around I would have bee lined it to my gear and either packed it away or clutched it with my sweaty palms for the rest of the day. It would be no fault other than your own if the gear came crashing down.

[neilwood32]

I would like to add my belated answer - insurance!

But failing that I would think in that particualr case, you and your brother would be jointly liable - you for being a plonker and leaving $$$$ of equipment where it can be easily damaged, your brother for letting his dog run about knowing your gear was unprotected. Certainly that would probably be the most amicable solution given that its family you are talking about.

[birdfromboat]

Exactly.. I.. The camera owner are 100% responsible for the camera and any damage it might produce. If I leave it unattended and it gets destroyed, stolen, or damaged, I am responsible. I am the bonehead that walked away leaving it where harm could happen.

I agree with you to an extent. I am responsible for my equipments safety, If I leave it unattended and it gets destroyed, stolen or damaged, I am responsible too. but it also depends on what happened, and wether I could be considered a bonehead for leaving it where I left it. Right now my gear is all alone at home, if someone breaks in and steals it, I am not a bonehead for leaving it there. I am not anywhere near 100% responsible.
If it was currently on a tripod sitting in traffic as you used in your example, yeah, i am a bonehead. 100% bonehead.
The hypothetical situation posed by the OP was the gear sitting outside pointed at a birdfeeder, being operated by remote from inside. if a branch fell on it, if skylab fell on it, if a big bird landed on it and knocked it over.....oh well, I guess the gear owner was a bonehead. but if another mans dog knocks it over while running loose, maybe not so much. Okay, maybe some, but not 100%.
If it was my dog, and the gear was insured, it probably wouldn't matter what the percentages were, I would be 100% in court with high paid lawyers trying 100% to get me to pay for 100% of the bill.

[20droger]

Boy, has this simple problem become blown out of proportion!

Look at the original scenario:
...I was at my Mom's house yesterday..., and my Mom wanted a few bird shots. So I set up my camera on a tripod in the back yard, pointed at a feeder and set a remote trigger. I went into the house and waited.

About a hour later, my brother let's [sic] his dog out the back door, and this little guy goes running around the yard chasing butterflies, etc....

Leaving family out of it for the moment, it becomes:
I was at a lady's house yesterday, and she wanted a few bird shots. So I set up my camera on a tripod in her back yard, pointed at a feeder and set a remote trigger. I went into her house and waited.

About a hour later, her son lets his dog out the back door, and the dog goes running around the yard chasing butterflies, etc.

There are several points here:

1 — It's the lady's house and yard, and she requested that the photographer capture bird pictures that required the setting up of the camera and tripod for remote actuation. The lady assumes liability because it is her property and her request.

2 — The son let the dog into the yard. Did the son know of the camera setup? If yes, the son assumed liability when he let the dog out. If no, the lady maintains liability for failing to inform the son.

Note that the photographer was fulfilling a request. This, in its simplest form, constitutes a contract, even if the only return is good will. The photographer is therefore not liable.

The dog is not a legal entity and therefore never liable. Its owner/guardian is.

However, it IS family, so in real world terms, the photographer sucks it up and replaces his gear himself. Hopefully, he has insurance.

The bad part of insurance is that the insurance people may turn around and sue the mother and/or brother.

[Woolburr]

The only way the dog owner would ever be liable is if he told the dog to fetch the tripod! Good grief...the dog is no more liable than a deer that hopped the fence would be....someone has been drinking too much funny Kool-Aid...(no wait, we could sue Mother Nature if a leaping deer hit the tripod!):rolleyes:

:lol::lol::lol:

[Jon]

Exactly ^^^

[20droger]

The only way the dog owner would ever be liable is if he told the dog to fetch the tripod! Good grief...the dog is no more liable than a deer that hopped the fence would be....someone has been drinking too much funny Kool-Aid...(no wait, we could sue Mother Nature if a leaping deer hit the tripod!):rolleyes:

:lol::lol::lol:
Not true. Barring other factors, a dog owner is liable for any damage caused by his/her dog. It is the responsibility of a dog owner to always remember that his/her dog is just that, a dog, and will act accordingly.

As for a wild animal, no you can't sue Mother Nature. Mother Nature is a facet of God, rendering all natural actions, including those of wild animals, acts of God

So far, they haven't figured out how to sue God. When they do, I'll let you serve the papers.

[birdfromboat]

The only way the dog owner would ever be liable is if he told the dog to fetch the tripod! Good grief...the dog is no more liable than a deer that hopped the fence would be....someone has been drinking too much funny Kool-Aid...(no wait, we could sue Mother Nature if a leaping deer hit the tripod!):rolleyes:

:lol::lol::lol:
I will drink my Kool-Aid however and whenever I like, wether you think it is funny or not;).
I like Rodgers post. well said and to the point.
I wish I could train my dogs to fetch Gitzo's, especially if proving I had trained him and told him to do it was the only way I would be liable. I would be the first person accused and proven guilty of conspiracy to commit theft with a non speaking animal, making the whole thing worthwhile just for the great story I would have to tell.
I am sorry that we disagree on this one, but we do.
I agree the dog itself cannot be held liable for this offense, but if a dog kills livestock or bites a human or in some places (Stanfield Oregon-look it up) gets caught having sex in public (thats right) they can be sentenced to time in county or even death. So they can be held liable for some of their actions, and the rest of their actions are the responsibility of the owner.
:lol:I don't know what kind of Kool Aid your mom makes you, but if you really think you are going to sue mother nature if a deer hops your fence and bashes your gear, you might want to taper back a little:lol:

[Overread]

As a bit of comic relief - someone is already way ahead of training simple dogs to retreive tripods and has gone for something far better and strong enough for the really good tripods (so well trained it stole a gitzo!)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/7588680/Polar-bear-steals-tripod.html

[neilwood32]

Not true. Barring other factors, a dog owner is liable for any damage caused by his/her dog. It is the responsibility of a dog owner to always remember that his/her dog is just that, a dog, and will act accordingly.

As for a wild animal, no you can't sue Mother Nature. Mother Nature is a facet of God, rendering all natural actions, including those of wild animals, acts of God

So far, they haven't figured out how to sue God. When they do, I'll let you serve the papers.

I think Billy Conolly did once - The Man Who Sued God (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268437/).

Not sure how well it would work in reality though.:lol::lol::lol:

I would agree though - the owner is responsible for the dogs behaviour so must at least share some responsibility for damage caused.