i wish this never happen to me. guys tell me what to do.

[vince123123]

It is a wrong premise to say that because A asks B to take the camera, B will not be responsible for ANYTHING that happens. The concept of negligence can be that both parties are both contributorily negligent causing the damage, and the amount will be apportioned accordingly.

To take the logical conclusion to that defence of "You ask me so not my problem", try going into a shop and wait for the salesperson to tell you "come come, try try, its good", and then dropping/damaging it and see if you can get away that easily.

 

[Kalas]

of cos my setup up was like kit lens and my body, walking around. after a normal greeting, is like " how is your shot?". we started chatting. part of his chat was how good pentax 10D camera is a "pro camera" and it is the top DG range, of cos i kept silence. kept comparing. till i got quite irritated. so i ask him, "so what is cannon Ds M111, nikon d3.... are you telling me that they are not pro lens?'. and there is when he gone silence.

then i ask him. why choice pentax over other brand? he say is becase of the good lens he is having. i answer him, "yar, true, but that is not the way, if u think that lens is dam good, go for film and not DG cam, and when u want to change body, u will get irritated on what to keep and not."

is till i fix up my giant lens to take some fishs coming off the surface, then he gave me the "ok you win,u are more exp then me, listen to you" look. at least, the end i share know from the book to him, and thankful to me. and offer to sent me home. this time with no broken body and etc.[/QUOTE/]

CANON's 1 series MIII or Nikon's D3 are not PRO lenses,
they r bodies.
don't get ur drift regarding the DG cam n film thing.
N r u suffering from a phyllisworship thing???
Smug because someone fell silence becos ur GIANT lens???
talk about compensation.

jude
91011233

 

[forevery photo]

It is a wrong premise to say that because A asks B to take the camera, B will not be responsible for ANYTHING that happens. The concept of negligence can be that both parties are both contributorily negligent causing the damage, and the amount will be apportioned accordingly.

To take the logical conclusion to that defence of "You ask me so not my problem", try going into a shop and wait for the salesperson to tell you "come come, try try, its good", and then dropping/damaging it and see if you can get away that easily.

but in this case, this guy run away safety. this type of person should not be walking around. if he cannot even carry other people thing. i dun think so he can take care of his own thing. no wander " nice to see, nice to touch once break consider sold"

1: "hi. can pass me my cam?"
2: "sure." *takes cam*
1: "ah, nvm, no need it liao."
2: "ok." *puts back cam*
*cam drops on floor*
2: "not my fault. i touch only. the cam drop by itself. somemore, is you ask me to touch one."
1: "oh dun worry. it's my fault. you dun have to pay anything. even if you steal my cam away i also can't do anything because it was me who asked you to help me take my cam. no fears. you are not at fault. i did not know that common sense doesn't instill you to look before you place objects."

if i change the story
it will be

1:"hi, the baby very cute? can you pass to me"
2:"sure, you want to carry. take it"
1:"ok."
passing, the baby kick -- fall over
2:"is not my fault. he kick me. and he drop on the floor by himself. somemore, is you who allow me to carry him. and i just want to help you carry the baby"
1:" oh on, dun worry, is not YOUR fault. you dun have to pay anything. even if you steal my bady away and carry to othere country to sell."
1:" anyway i can product another body"

so if this happen to you what you should do.
is that what you mean. or is there more and more poeple like that?

 

[Belle&Sebastain]

sorry to hear such an unfortunate incident that happen to you TS, Really I think you should just move on and take a lesson in life. As a professional wedding photographer, I have a cause in my contract that will refuse anyone to pass me a camera/video camera to take a picture for them. One of the problems that may arise is the one you mention so it does not pay to be kind.

 

[Astin]

It is a wrong premise to say that because A asks B to take the camera, B will not be responsible for ANYTHING that happens. The concept of negligence can be that both parties are both contributorily negligent causing the damage, and the amount will be apportioned accordingly.

What if, A asks B to take the camera, and for some reason B passes to camera to C to take, then C breaks it, will B be still be responsible (apportioned)?

 

[chngpe01]

It is a wrong premise to say that because A asks B to take the camera, B will not be responsible for ANYTHING that happens. The concept of negligence can be that both parties are both contributorily negligent causing the damage, and the amount will be apportioned accordingly.

To take the logical conclusion to that defence of "You ask me so not my problem", try going into a shop and wait for the salesperson to tell you "come come, try try, its good", and then dropping/damaging it and see if you can get away that easily.

Well if this is the case I think you would be the best person to represent the TS and sue the old man for compensation for his GIANT lens and camera. include legal cost too. :thumbsup:

 

[satay16]

It is a wrong premise to say that because A asks B to take the camera, B will not be responsible for ANYTHING that happens. The concept of negligence can be that both parties are both contributorily negligent causing the damage, and the amount will be apportioned accordingly.

To take the logical conclusion to that defence of "You ask me so not my problem", try going into a shop and wait for the salesperson to tell you "come come, try try, its good", and then dropping/damaging it and see if you can get away that easily.

i really agree with you. right now, the worst part is there seems to be no sense of guilt at all. if people want to draw the line so clearly that you are the only one responsible for your own things, then forget about law, i can just steal your camera and you just have to blame it on your negligence to put your cam at home rather than in a secure safebox in a bank cos you assume that your old home is secure enough. it is a damn bad analogy, but it seems alot of people here are giving it too. what if person A ask person B who asked person C then request person D to ask person E to bring person F here to tell him take person G.........................

who cares? it is just 2 people now. short and simple.

 

[vince123123]

Hmm, that is a good question, I have no idea hahaha At least not without having to do research on it

Off the cuff, I guess the main issue is whether you can show negligence on the part of A, B or C and how much each one was negligent for.

I think it isn't that simple a question as I don't even know whether negligence cause of action can be made out even for a situation of just A & B. I do know however that if it can be made out, it will be no defence to say that "Eh you pass to me so not my business".

What if, A asks B to take the camera, and for some reason B passes to camera to C to take, then C breaks it, will B be still be responsible (apportioned)?

 

[vince123123]

Yeap, that is probably so, and that line of reasoning indeed can be extended to so many aspects of our life and people will no longer be liable for anything by using or extending that reasoning.

i really agree with you. right now, the worst part is there seems to be no sense of guilt at all. if people want to draw the line so clearly that you are the only one responsible for your own things, then forget about law, i can just steal your camera and you just have to blame it on your negligence to put your cam at home rather than in a secure safebox in a bank cos you assume that your old home is secure enough. it is a damn bad analogy, but it seems alot of people here are giving it too. what if person A ask person B who asked person C then request person D to ask person E to bring person F here to tell him take person G.........................

who cares? it is just 2 people now. short and simple.

 

[wrx_sti_22b]

If tat man is an old man... he must be the typical 'yi lau mai lau' that kind of senior citizen... sometimes quite irritating, this kind of 'yi lau mai lau' character.

The fact is that everybody will grow old, no 2 ways about it. And its not just karma its life. No way to avoid it..... well unless one's life journey ends before that stage.

I dun mean old ppl are irritating, i meant to say the 'yi lau mai lau' character is irritating... some 30+ to 40+ yrs old ppl also have this kind of character, not neccessary older ppl.

 

[Static]

i do not really like posting in forums. till today. got angry.

but i guess it bring me up to the point that i should log a case in small claim.
under the small claim, cover tortious damage to property. of cos before i go i should head on to a police post for adivce and what type of claim.

i think let someone be there to give fair word. since he is not gentlement enough to pay for the damage.

i did understand about human being, for running away from what they have done wrong. let him speak the truth.
what do you all think?

static- same thing happen to me when i was little. but my neibouror willingly pay me the different, in fact she brought me a new one of SEGA ( something like PS2) till now it is still working good. and we still keep in contact.
.

Ayia, dun read too much into this. He is just saying that both of you are equally responsible

for the mishap that had happened. You had placed too much faith on a stranger to take care

of your expensive gears while he is clumsy person who was foolish to accept ur request. :sweat:

Anyway, it's best to let the matter rest and get it off your chest. It's only a few days into

the new year. Cheer up.

If it is something that can be solved by your own money $$$. It's not a big problem.

Let it go

As for me, I've learned my lesson.

 

[calebk]

i agree with 'yi lau mai lau' ('selling your old unwanted through to anyone') and another sentence is "i eat salt more then you eating rice"

different from the broken lens case:bheart:

there one time, and old couple, i mean i will not say old cos they are around my parent age. he was taking shot in the forest, a MA mirco lens. i can say it is a goog MA mirco lens, i forget what brand.

of cos my setup up was like kit lens and my body, walking around. after a normal greeting, is like " how is your shot?". we started chatting. part of his chat was how good pentax 10D camera is a "pro camera" and it is the top DG range, of cos i kept silence. kept comparing. till i got quite irritated. so i ask him, "so what is cannon Ds M111, nikon d3.... are you telling me that they are not pro body?'. and there is when he gone silence.

then i ask him. why choice pentax over other brand? he say is becase of the good lens he is having. i answer him, "yar, true, but that is not the way, if u think that lens is dam good, go for film and not DG cam, and when u want to change body, u will get irritated on what to keep and not."

is till i fix up my giant lens to take some fishs coming off the surface, then he gave me the "ok you win,u are more exp then me, listen to you" look. at least, the end i share know from the book to him, and thankful to me. and offer to sent me home. this time with no broken body and etc.

I don't get your logic on why a good lens should be paired to a film body, and not a digital camera.

 

[WuffRuff]

I think the responsibilty here is 75-25%, with 75% going to the TS.

Why 75% TS?
Because TS was THE ONE who asked the old man to pass the gear. Based on TS's JUDGEMENT, he trusted the old man's ability to pass him the gear and also based on TS's DECISION, the old man complied and did so. TS was the DRIVING FORCE behind the events of this incident.

Why old man is responsible by 25%?
Though it is not stemming from the old man's will, BUT, he does have the FREE WILL to comply with or reject TS's request. By complying with TS's request, the old man has made a judgement that he is ABLE to carry out the task. And by carrying out the task, from the time that the old man picks up the gear and puts it in TS's hands, or puts it back down, he is assuming the RESPONSIBILITY for the gear. It is in HIS HANDS. Who else can be responsible for the gear at THAT TIME?

The Accounts:
OK, if you were to go to small claims, based on the 75-25% verdict, and a repair cost of $280, you will have to pay $210 and the old man $70. I supposed there are some charges for small claims? Let's say it's $10. So u get back $60. And then, there is transport cost of travelling to small claims, and u may have to go a few times, so let's say transport cost is $10. So u're left with $50. And then not to forget the long waiting time for the Q of your case. Ok, even if you don't factor that in cos actually you are not spending any time for that, consider the hours spent in court, etc. Ok, let's say you spend 3 hours in total. So you earn $50 for 3 hours of work. If you think your 3 hours is worth $50 or less, and a lot of anger and frustration in court, then go ahead to small claims.

Otherwise... you know better, what is a far better way of spending your time and days on earth.

All the best to you!

 

[vince123123]

Well, the ratio may or may not be 75-25, and the repair cost may or may not be $280

 

[WuffRuff]

Anyway, jus to share my story with you cos your story made me recall this...

I went to Taman Negara, to this Bat Ear Cave where there are lots of bats inside. So the cave is wet and slippery and the entire route is formed of these wet, slippery, irregular boulders/ rocks etc, and we had to hold on to ropes. I was still quite new with my gear and had never taken my gear to such places before. So before i went in, I stood outside pondering if I should actually bring my gear in and how would I be able to move around in there while lugging all these stuff. I knew I wanted to bring my gear in to take those photos and my concern wasn't so much abt protecting my expensive gear rather than how I would be able to actually lug my gear around in those conditions.

We had a guide with us and he saw me standing outside so he asked me to go into the cave. Then, I told him I'm thinking whether to bring my camera in or not. So the kind guide generously volunteered to help me carry my gear. With that, I agreed and in we went, guide with camera, me with just me. So during our journey through the cave, whenever I wanted to take photos, he would pass me the camera, and when i was done, I would pass it back to him. Yeahh, all this passing to and fro carried rather high risk and I paid extra special attention to it. Fortunately for me, my gear worth $2500 exited the cave in good working condition, with some bat **** and a small scratch.

But should I be unfortunate, I could easily have lost my gear. The conditions were not easy and if the camera dropped, it could be unretrievable, not even to mention repair - $2500 just gone into the abyss of a cave - maybe to become the bats' new toy. I knew full well of the risk involved when I trusted the guide to carry my gear. AND, I knew full well I wouldn't get a cent from him should he cause me to lose my camera. This is a poor person whose wages are probably just enough to cover he and his family's living expenses. He might not be able to pay for even the UV filter on my lens if he saved for his whole life.

But I still allowed him to carry my gear, because my judgement trusted him to be able to take BETTER care of my gear than myself. Here is someone who goes in and out of this cave every day and knows this place like the back of his hand, as opposed to myself who have only ever stepped into a cave a few times in my life and it's my first time entering this cave. True, I have myself to blame if my gear gets destroyed by me and maybe can only shut up and feel LL if he did it... but would it make any sense to do it just because I can blame myself and can't blame another? We need to break out of this blame mentality. It's not about who you can blame, just because being able to put the blame on someone, anyone, makes you feel a bit better?

Secondly, I took this risk because I know full well that I did not spend $2500 on a very expensive decorative piece. This was what I spent my money for, and what my camera was built to do - to take photos - difficult photos. This was my camera's destiny - since it ended up with me - to take great National Geographic photos (haha, I hope la)! And if it were to die from it's mission, then it has lived a good life and died a worthy death. And I, would just lose $2500 which I will earn back in time.

This is my mentality. So take your camera out into the brave new world. Sometimes, it might meet with some unfortunate accidents. Bring it to the hospital to get fixed, then bring it out to brave even stronger storms. This is life. Give some and take some. I know it's painful. Cry and get over the pain and move on. There are better and bigger things ahead.

As for the scratch on my lens (it's jus on the body la), I wasn't much troubled by it. I looked upon it as it's badge of glory for having braved the bat ear cave with me. And even if it was caused by the guide, I wouldn't blame him. I'm grateful to him for helping me make my camera's cave trip a reality and for all the photos I got in there.

 

[WuffRuff]

Well, the ratio may or may not be 75-25, and the repair cost may or may not be $280

He quoted the repair cost as $280. I didn't make that up la...
As for 75-25%, i'm pretty sure too...
OK, at BEST, he can get 50-50% rite?
OK... so he makes $120 for 3 hours of work and a lot of anger, frustration, pain etc...
Do you really think it's worth it?

 

[vince123123]

Ah okay, I missed the S$280 part. Ratio wise, well thats up to the judge.

That's usually the problem with claims of small quantums, usually its not worth the trouble.

He quoted the repair cost as $280. I didn't make that up la...
As for 75-25%, i'm pretty sure too...
OK, at BEST, he can get 50-50% rite?
OK... so he makes $120 for 3 hours of work and a lot of anger, frustration, pain etc...
Do you really think it's worth it?

 

[satay16]

Ah okay, I missed the S$280 part. Ratio wise, well thats up to the judge.

That's usually the problem with claims of small quantums, usually its not worth the trouble.

actually, i wun even bother getting into the paying part, but rather, even asking the guy to apologise might be a colossial assignment. do you guys think that TS will be posting here if the guy had at least showed an apologetic attitude? who's at fault is the debatable question(which is filling up this thread), but that guy's "none of my business" attitude is the one pissing the TS off. Greatly.

Just look at the other thread lambasting students buying only one drink and spending hours occupying the tables. The students' are paying customers, they bought a drink, they can spend as much time they want there if the restaurant doesn't have rules like buffetaurants. Why doesn't anyone blame the resturant or the building for providing internet? It is not because the students done anything right or wrong, but rather, their blatant "none of my business" attitude by ignoring the needs of other customers.

Hope all of you understand TS. It is really not a matter worth discussing, but I just couldn't take it when you people start blaming the TS using all sorts of unrelated reasoning when the root of the problem lied on the guy's attitude rather than who should pay. If the guy apologised, I dun think this thread will be here (if TS is kind enough to accept an apology and take the incident as a lesson).

 

[chngpe01]

..... do you guys think that TS will be posting here if the guy had at least showed an apologetic attitude? who's at fault is the debatable question(which is filling up this thread), but that guy's "none of my business" attitude is the one pissing the TS off. Greatly.
..... I dun think this thread will be here (if TS is kind enough to accept an apology and take the incident as a lesson).

It is all speculation on what is on the TS mind and intention. But since you put this question across, the answer is simple... Yes he(TS) will still post even if the old man apologies but refuses to pay.

Look at the TS thread and at which point in the first thread, did the TS said that he is "kind enough" to let the matter past if the old man apologises? The TS even go on to say that the old man "do not even know how to hold a len" Looking at the TS attitude he even went further to boast(in anoher post) about his set up and shutting another old man(who is kind evnough to give him a lift) up with is GIANT lens.

So keep your assumption to yourself and the root(ie the cause, the source, the beginning of it all) of the problem is that the TS is too lazy to take a step back and carry his own equipment but go around asking stranger to bring it to him.

This is an extract from the first post.

....... and it break from the lense mounting. Not even saying sorry, he chance his topic to buying a second hand model of a different brand.

i told him, fine maybe he could pay part of the cost for a second hand body. and he just turn me down. he add on, " i just touch the camera and it drop, and is not my problem and i amd just doing a favor." very irresponsible behavior for the photograher, and formore he is very senior(age) to any one. and may i ask who will be so blur as in, someone handing over a 3 kg plus items without looking back at the total action and event.

i am not here to spam anyone, but look at his action that tell the word-

look at the way he speak to me before and after. before that, he was saying about how i should take the photo i want. and advise me to stick to what i have till i master that body and lense. and after, he is promoting me to buy other brand of camera and not back to the old body. worst he said, he will not have gone down to the ground to take the photo because you will make noise and get the bird to set off. "sience is golden in forest" everyone should know. and yet he was talking so loudly during this event.

so guys any advice and commen for me. At least, my heart pain is for a lesson for everyone.

"photograhy is a very expensive hobbies, before you know it. you are spending out more then you through. so trust only you and yourself, even if on the road."

lense and camera body. camera is gone for good. i hope there is nothing wrong with the lense.

and what should be my correct action for him. i am more then happy to tell everyone who he was, since he gave me his name card. the joker part is, do not tell me that, he do even know how to hold up the camera.

there are sentence make by him, which i wanted to share with you guys. unless the club adm allow me too.

 

[forevery photo]

actually, i wun even bother getting into the paying part, but rather, even asking the guy to apologise might be a colossial assignment. do you guys think that TS will be posting here if the guy had at least showed an apologetic attitude? who's at fault is the debatable question(which is filling up this thread), but that guy's "none of my business" attitude is the one pissing the TS off. Greatly.

yesh, if he had show apologise. this post will not even be here.

and he do not carry that "none of my business" attitude, this post will had been. " i meet someone in the forest, and he is very kind-hearted in teaching me about photograhy. should we should try our best .... good word will be written.

beside if he drop the camera, due to some other reason. like there is a bee flying around, or there is a danger. then that is "fine". he drop the camera, cos he claim that he "touch it and drop" do you think is fair.