OMG 1Ds MK3 hit the concrete

I can't comment on the legalities.

Ethically, I think that there is a greater burden of responsibility on the part of the owner of the camera to ensure its safety in a public place, than on a member of the public to ensure that no normal, typical, predictable, and innocent action of theirs might cause damage to another's property. The value of that property does not affect the apportionment of this responsibility at all, especially since members of the public could not be expected to know the value of every item they might come across; rather, it seems to me that the higher the value placed on an item by its owner, the greater care they should take.

Upshot: your friend should be more careful in future; whether suit is feasible depends on your local legal system.

randy.wick wrote in post #7382406
There's a difference between an accident and negligence. Your friend should contact an attorney. Even if she doesn't have the money to pay out damages, she may have some kind of liability insurance. I would also contact the manager of Best Buy and explain that one of his uniformed employees destroyed such expensive equipment by failing to exercise ordinary, reasonable care.

Essentially, for any suit in negligence to stand, your friend would have to demonstrate that he acted (that is, secured the camera in such a position) with reasonably prudent care, and that she, while walking by, failed to do so and that resulted in the injury to your friend (i.e., broken camera).

An attorney would be able to explain all of this, as well as give you an idea of whether you'd be wasting your time pursuing it, in less than an hour. But don't forget he or she would take a hefty percentage of whatever settlement your friend ultimately gets...

Very good points.
There is definitely a line somewhere, and it may be very fuzzy, between responsibility of the owner and of any party causing such an accident. It is very dependent on the situation. I would lie on the 'owner should take more care' side of things, even if the lady swung around violently and knocked it off the table. A restaurant is a very public place, and it is not completely unexpected that people will be bustling about.

All the woman has gotta say is " Dont kow what you are on about"? and plead ignorance.. its your word against hers at the end of the day

I agree with Xarqi - accidents happen. The situation as described sounds to me like an accident all set up to happen. Unintentionally, of course - but an argument could be made that the camera owner didn't exercise due care to protect his property from an event that could have been anticipated.

-js

xarqi wrote in post #7382417
I can't comment on the legalities.

Ethically, I think that there is a greater burden of responsibility on the part of the owner of the camera to ensure its safety in a public place, than on a member of the public to ensure that no normal, typical, predictable, and innocent action of theirs might cause damage to another's property. The value of that property does not affect the apportionment of this responsibility at all, especially since members of the public could not be expected to know the value of every item they might come across; rather, it seems to me that the higher the value placed on an item by its owner, the greater care they should take.

Upshot: your friend should be more careful in future; whether suit is feasible depends on your local legal system.

Can't you also take the same reasoning and come to the conclusion that one should always be extra careful? That black hunk of metal and plastic may be worth $.10 or $10k...

bubbawillums wrote in post #7382447
All the woman has gotta say is " Dont kow what you are on about"? and plead ignorance.. its your word against hers at the end of the day

Not really... he could show evidence such as friends' testimony, etc., to convince he is right. In a lawsuit, it's not your word against hers, but rather the judge's decision as to what the facts are...

stupid best buy employees lol

Ya might consider killing her husband, kids, dogs, cats, maid, valet, etc.

xarqi wrote in post #7382417
I can't comment on the legalities.

Ethically, I think that there is a greater burden of responsibility on the part of the owner of the camera to ensure its safety in a public place, than on a member of the public to ensure that no normal, typical, predictable, and innocent action of theirs might cause damage to another's property. The value of that property does not affect the apportionment of this responsibility at all, especially since members of the public could not be expected to know the value of every item they might come across; rather, it seems to me that the higher the value placed on an item by its owner, the greater care they should take.

Upshot: your friend should be more careful in future; whether suit is feasible depends on your local legal system.

X2

I blame your friend more than the woman. He must have had the camera on the edge of the table with the strap hanging over the edge in a crowded area. Sounds pretty careless for knowing the value. If this wasn't the case how did the woman's purse snag it.

As far as regular home owners policies, I don't believe they cover things away from the home. You can get a separate rider on your policy to cover it anywhere, for practically anything.

And it really sucks that as a society when anything happens the first thing a lot of people thing of is "Take them to court and sue them". And that lawyers take every case like this, and the courts allow them. SAD

Oh yeah, I feel bad for your friend. Hopefully it was insured.

randy.wick wrote in post #7382486
Can't you also take the same reasoning and come to the conclusion that one should always be extra careful? That black hunk of metal and plastic may be worth $.10 or $10k...

Ah, but without specific knowledge, do we not gauge the value of something by the care its owner takes of it? Why should anyone be more concerned for the safety of another's property than that person is themselves?

xarqi wrote in post #7382417
I can't comment on the legalities.

Ethically, I think that there is a greater burden of responsibility on the part of the owner of the camera to ensure its safety in a public place, than on a member of the public to ensure that no normal, typical, predictable, and innocent action of theirs might cause damage to another's property. The value of that property does not affect the apportionment of this responsibility at all, especially since members of the public could not be expected to know the value of every item they might come across; rather, it seems to me that the higher the value placed on an item by its owner, the greater care they should take.

Upshot: your friend should be more careful in future; whether suit is feasible depends on your local legal system.

Dead on. If it happened to me, I'd feel pretty stupid for not having taken precautions against such a thing happening. Unless she grabbed it out of my hand and threw it on the floor, I'd feel responsible for not protecting my treasured items.

That said, the minute I placed the order for my gear, I called my insurance company and had a specific addition made to my home owners policy to cover any and all damage, whether it is caused by my stupidity or something else. All risks are covered and no deductible. I covered all lenses, camera, and even the tripod. The coverage was cheap, and I feel a whole lot safer.

Accidents happen yadda yadda yadda. Maybe so but they're also preventable.

Sorry but lets put some responsibility on the camera owner.

First off your friend should know to be a little more careful with his camera. We're not talking about a P&S for pete's sake. This was a $7000 camera with a $1500 lens attached. Leaving it anywhere where someone else has even the slightest chance of coming in contact with it is irresponsible IMO.

Second, he's a fool for not having his gear insured.

So I suppose it only makes sense that he would consider suing someone else for his own stupidity.

highcountry wrote in post #7382321
Big bucks situation that probably exceeds small claims court. He needs to file a report with the police. He has witnesses and a license number. BB usually sells cameras like 40D and 50D models. That woman should have known that damage to a camera and lens was no trivial thing. Home owners/renters insurance policies have liability for just such things.

Good luck!

And the Police will tell you its a civil matter, trust me Small claims will be a hard win especially since it was at the edge of the table and the strap contributed to it. He would have to prove she was so reckless in her behavior, besides being rude, that caused the damage. Expensive lesson to learn to get a rider on your homeowner insurance.

I hate to be the voice of ethics here, but it was an accident...

Maybe she shouldn't have reacted like that, but what else did you expect her to do? Offer to pay for a camera that she had probably never seen before?

xarqi wrote in post #7382720
Ah, but without specific knowledge, do we not gauge the value of something by the care its owner takes of it? Why should anyone be more concerned for the safety of another's property than that person is themselves?

That's a very good point. Still, a Best Buy employee should be aware of the potential value of a relatively small electronic device.

I'd sue the hell out of her, and attach best buy under a respondeat superior theory. Failure to properly prepare employees to understand the dangers of carelessly swinging hand bags around expensive camera equipment. Twenty page complaint. Maybe you're a resident of another state and you can even bring it action in federal court...

Or maybe I'm just a law student and like trying to think of things from this point of view

In any case, so sorry to hear it. Hopefully you find resolution!