Who should pay?

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.

That's why you carry insurance . . .

Jon wrote in post #10153653
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.

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.

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

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

[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

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.

Woolburr wrote in post #10154045
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

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!

birdfromboat wrote in post #10154137
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.

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.

gjl711 wrote in post #10154345
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!

birdfromboat wrote in post #10155072
....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.

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.