OMG 1Ds MK3 hit the concrete

miccullen wrote in post #7386160
Why not try and blackmail her? Great idea.

I really don't think you needed to put the bit in about being a law student, unless you were simply making the point that you're not yet qualified.

You beat me to it. Geez. Best Buy has nothing at all to do with this!

-js

Sue her mother, had she not got drunk one night and given into her husbands demands, this would never have happened!

randy.wick wrote in post #7382865
That's a very good point. Still, a Best Buy employee should be aware of the potential value of a relatively small electronic device.

So.....if she worked at a Dollar Store she would be off the hook for the damage?

If that was my $8500 worth of equipment it would not be setting anywhere near the edge of a restaurant table. It would also be insured-my humble collection of equipment is. I think the scale of responsibility is weighted more on the owner than the clumsy person.

wow. What a story.
I wouldn't have left her just walk away without solving the issue.

Best Buy only sells up to the 40 and 50D, and she might not have even worked in that department.

Dennio wrote in post #7389461
wow. What a story.
I wouldn't have left her just walk away without solving the issue.

And how would you propose to stop her?

number six wrote in post #7389608
And how would you propose to stop her?

Assault her, presumably. Not many other ways if she's determined to keep walking.

miccullen wrote in post #7389659
Assault her, presumably. Not many other ways if she's determined to keep walking.

That was my assumption.

That's why we have laws, isn't it?

-js

Why would you have to assault her? The OP never even said "Excuse me, you just broke my camera. Were you even going to stop?" Most people don't like confrontation and she probably would have stopped, giving the OP the opportunity to at least think about asking her for contact info for insurance purposes.

She did just about the smartest thing she could have given the sue-happy tendencies of so many people. She could have stopped and said she was sorry and exchanged information and been dragged into a suit for $9,000 which she probably has no chance of paying being a Best Buy employee. Instead she just took off and let the accident simply be an accident. Honestly, I probably would have just said sorry and took off because there's no way I could replace that camera being a college student with about $50 to my name.

liquefied wrote in post #7391440
She did just about the smartest thing she could have given the sue-happy tendencies of so many people. She could have stopped and said she was sorry and exchanged information and been dragged into a suit for $9,000 which she probably has no chance of paying being a Best Buy employee. Instead she just took off and let the accident simply be an accident. Honestly, I probably would have just said sorry and took off because there's no way I could replace that camera being a college student with about $50 to my name.

I'm sorry, but this kind of attitude is the same as Hit and Run. Really, that is a valid solution? How does taking off let an accident 'be an accident'?

Being a Kiwi I see some rather ironic things here.

Firstly we are commenting on a set of circumstances we did not witness, we have only what the OP posted as evidence, and that evidence is not balanced by statements from other witnesses, which includes the camera owner, others at the table, other patrons, the woman.

Secondly, she did stop and aplogise, what else is she to do? Offer to buy a new one? To me she has behaved rather well in fact. Most of us get a bit flustered when we have an entirely surprising accident. Is she entirely at fault? I can not say, I did not see it. But from what is presented in this thread, I would say it would appear the camera placement was an accident waiting to happen.

Of course many outsiders see the USA justice system as being rather biased towards sueing for the slightest thing, you slip on icey steps and immediately look around for someone to sue, ie some one else to blame, and it seems to me that is the case here, a moments carelessness by the owner and now everyone is talking about sueing, except the actual owner of course. The lady took some responsibility for her part, and it could be that she took too much responsibility, I don't know, I was not there, surely the owner has to take responsibility for his/her gear also?

The camera should have been in a safe place, where it could not be knocked off, or snared by a hand bag or belt, or even bumped by coat tails in what is obviously an enclosed space.

Now look at the original post, the poster puts himself at the table, then says

, so was he actually there or is he relating the tale third hand?

My first reading of the original post suggested a group at the table, after a shoot, all obviously photographers, yet none were watching the camera, if the had of been watching, the camera quite possibly could have been 'rescued' at the table before any damage was done.

To my mind the whole group is responsible, a group of photographers would normally look out for one another's gear and make the situation safer. Unless of course you are afraid of being sued for touching that which is not yours, even tho' you are taking it out of danger.

My reading of this was that it was also a group of photographers. They apparently only had one camera amongst all of them which broke when it hit the floor. Had they had more than one camera one of the photographers would have thought to take a picture of the woman and her car as she drove off; thus obviating the need to shove the 70-200 where it does not belong. Strange situation. . .

mrkgoo wrote in post #7391555
I'm sorry, but this kind of attitude is the same as Hit and Run. Really, that is a valid solution? How does taking off let an accident 'be an accident'?

The fact that it was an accident is what lets it be an accident. What would you do if you have no money and your bag strap snags someone's $9,000 camera off a table?