| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
SI Sued for dropped camera equipment
Joe Brown, Photographer
 |
Woburn | MA | USA | Posted: 2:35 PM on 10.10.07 |
->> This article is in today's Boston Herald newspaper - does anyone have any details - I don't think I had even heard of the original incident before reading this in the paper. Joe Brown
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=103708...
SNIP >>> Sports Illustrated and photographer John Iacono are named in a federal lawsuit brought by a California baseball fan, who claims the magazine’s celebrated shooter dropped camera equipment on his head during Game 2 of the 2004 World Series... |
|
Max Gersh, Student/Intern, Photo Editor
|
St. Louis | MO | USA | Posted: 2:59 PM on 10.10.07 |
->> I frequently shoot with one of Iacono's assistants and I heard this story a while back. What I heard was that he was on one of the slanted roofs above the seats with a 600mm on a monopod. He laid that down I think to switch lenses. With the slant of those roofs, the 600mm went sliding. The version I heard was that it hit the ground luckily missing all of the fans. In the article it says he was 50ft up. If a 600mm fell from 50ft and hit him on his head, he probably wouldn't be around to file suit. Maybe some shattering pieces hit this guy. I would assume this is the same incident and that Iacono isn't dropping his gear all the time.
-Max Gersh- |
|
Andrew Villa, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
San Jose | CA | United States | Posted: 3:09 PM on 10.10.07 |
->> like max said. If someone dropped a 600mm lens, 50ft up. They wouldn't be around to file a suit.
something sounds fishy to me. |
|
Jason Johns, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Biddeford | ME | USA | Posted: 3:12 PM on 10.10.07 |
->> I wonder why this guy waited almost 3 years before filing this suit... unless he just wants a quick payday. You get smacked on the head with a 12 lb lens falling 50 feet, you're not going to have much gray matter left between your ears.
Is it just me, or are there alot more nusiance lawsuits going around? First there was the NY woman suing Apple for dropping the iPhone price, now this? Is it something in the water that makes common sense go south or something? |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | US | Posted: 3:14 PM on 10.10.07 |
->> allegedly...dude suffers from "blurred vision and flagging intimacy with his wife"...
and
"Carol Nagy, his wife of 40 years, seeks to be compensated for “loss of consortium” in her marriage."
what? huh?
Delane |
|
Richard Wolowicz, Photographer
|
Brossard | QC | Canada | Posted: 3:29 PM on 10.10.07 |
->> "Loss of consortium"
I haven't consorted in a while either ... and never had a lens hit me in the head. |
|
Thomas Boydston, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Georgetown | Tx | United States | Posted: 3:34 PM on 10.10.07 |
->> Do the math people, a 12 pound lens hitting him square on the head would probably require an emergency room trip. We know this. But no more grey matter between his ears? People have survived much more without being considered incredible. I'm sure we've all taken big knocks to the head (maybe not from an 11.2 pound nikkor 600mm or a 11.82 pound canon 600mm) but brains oozing from his ears?
Either way, if you read the story it knocked him on the back of his head, not on the top of his head. Big difference there. You also have to consider, maybe the tripod (not monopod) hit him, maybe it was closer to the rear element? There's no way a mounted lens is going to fall perfectly square on his head. Also, it's only falling for a little over a second and a half (pull up a velocity calculator by all means). At 9.8meters*seconds^2, he's not getting ANNIHILATED by any means. Anyone else watch mythbusters? The penny from the skyscraper doesn't kill you. Despite weight, everything falls at the same speed. Thanks to air, a penny is probably going to fall -faster- than a 600mm lens.
Just because he works in the same field (the photog, not the guy in the stands), don't immediately discredit everything the fan says. Either way, if you get hit on the head from somebody not being safe, that's one of the more reasonable times to sue. If a doctor leaves a towel in your torso you'd sue, yeah? Granted this is a bit more of an extreme, it's just my example.
The iPhone lawsuit is way more absurd and on the other end of the spectrum.
Sorry to rant, but that's just my two cents. (Canadian pennies at present, American ones only get you about a sentence or two of ranting- haha.) |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 3:45 PM on 10.10.07 |
->> Standard legal two step. Boy, could I tell you stories about some of the stupid, without merit cases I both seen and been involved in.
There's not enough information in the lawsuit to tell exactly what happened,but.... If the guy really did get struck by falling photo equipment, he does indeed have a case. He'd also, as several have pointed out, be dead.
But, based on what we do know, we can answer a couple of questions and make some educated guesses. Why did it take so long? Probably because the plantiff's lawyer tried without success to negotiate (extort) a out of court settlement. SI (ie Time) has deep pockets and that makes them a very attractive target.
From my perspective, SI's insurance carrier must not think these two have a case otherwise they would have settled. Usually cheaper than going to court and that's what insurance carriers often look at - not whether or not the claim actually has any merit. (When I have had business situations come up from time to time, the insurance carrier would pay it even if, on the merits, the plantiff had no claim. They would then increase my rates. )
Since it's $2M, the insurance company knows it's cheaper to defend it. Don't be surprised if, just before the trial starts, the two sides negotiate a settlement.
As most lawyers will tell you, do whatever you can to avoid litigation. It's not like TV...It's expensive, and one never knows exactly what will happen. |
|
Wesley R. Bush, Photographer
 |
Nashville | TN | U.S. | Posted: 3:59 PM on 10.10.07 |
| ->> This may sound like a joke, but really how much loss of consortium is a person going to get after 40 years of marriage? They typically put a dollar figure to each occurrence and average the amount from there. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 4:47 PM on 10.10.07 |
->> I have three kids, two large dogs, a small house and travel often for work. This significantly affects me personal consortium with said mother of my three kids. Is there someone I can sue for a live in nanny and a larger house due to the afore mentioned decrease in consortium?
I was shooting Game #2 of the 2004 World Series. I heard a lot of yelling and thus had a mild headache in the 9th inning. Additionally when the Sox won the series I was screaming and jumping like a fan which thus strained my vocal cords. I got home very tired and again there were issues related to consortium due to the feeling of fatigue. Can I sue MLB for this? |
|
Thomas Boydston, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Georgetown | Tx | United States | Posted: 4:55 PM on 10.10.07 |
->> Do I need to repost and be an ass?
It wouldn't kill him if it hit him "on the back of the head" and it wasn't dead-on, which (go figure) the story says. Either way, it wasn't traveling that fast after just 50 feet and 12 pounds isn't that much weight. I suppose this is where we all pretend to be doctors and physicists. |
|
Michael McNamara, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Lincoln | NE | USA | Posted: 5:01 PM on 10.10.07 |
->> Or try to make futile attempts at getting a "funny" rating.
Maybe we should just say "be careful when you're shooting from a position when there are spectators below you." |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 6:02 PM on 10.10.07 |
| ->> If he was injured by falling camera gear, even if a small injury, the guy should be compensated. He didn't go to a ball game looking to get smacked on the head by debris. How much he gets and who has to pay is why you have courts. |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
|
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 6:07 PM on 10.10.07 |
| ->> People wait a few years to file suits so potentail witnesses are not around or have faulty memories . It is an old legal trick. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 6:54 PM on 10.10.07 |
->> Steven,
Is the nanny to watch the kids, or the solution to lack of consortium? ;-)
(Really, Mrs. Frischlng, JUST kidding...)
Actually, though, I think it has more to do with whether someone's negligence caused your lack of consortium. And it certainly does sound like someone was negligent if they laid their big lens down on a slanted roof.
Funny, just yesterday in another thread I opined that our community would condemn a photographer for an unsafe job of rigging strobes, regardless of what photos they got from the unsafe shoot. Guess I was wrong about that...
Chuck |
|
JohnPaul Greco, Photographer, Assistant
|
Milwaukee | WI | USA | Posted: 7:29 PM on 10.10.07 |
->> "->> This may sound like a joke, but really how much loss of consortium is a person going to get after 40 years of marriage? They typically put a dollar figure to each occurrence and average the amount from there."
......Maybe the guy needs a new pair of glasses, and a prescription for a Viagra..?
......who knows.. ? :-p
JP |
|
Jack Kurtz, Photographer
|
Phoenix | AZ | United States | Posted: 7:37 PM on 10.10.07 |
->> But I love the last line of the story, "All was not lost that night at Fenway, behind the pitching of Curt Schilling, Boston beat St. Louis 6-2 en route their historic four game sweep of the Cardinals." It's good to have priorities.
jack |
|
Bruce Schwartzman, Photographer
|
BALTIMORE | MD | | Posted: 7:57 PM on 10.10.07 |
->> You know the feeling most of us have when we see someone on the sidelines with their point and shoot camera?
I imagine it is the same way a legal professional would feel if they read the ruminations of photographers on the legal merits, strategy and precedents as applied to this case.... |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 8:01 PM on 10.10.07 |
->> Jack
I think ending the story with this line:
"All was not lost that night at Fenway, behind the pitching of Curt Schilling, Boston beat St. Louis 6-2 en route their historic four game sweep of the Cardinals."
is important. Hell My Sox Won The Series......and by the grace of God they'll do it again this year !!!! |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington | IL | United States | Posted: 8:31 PM on 10.10.07 |
->> 11.8 pounds. I had to double check the specs on Canon's site just to make sure that was correct.
I've got a 1st model USM 600 F4 (non IS). It feels closer to 15 or 16 lbs.
Either way, I'd hate to get hit with one anywhere on my body with it from 5 feet, let alone 50 ft.
I think this is why insurance is such a good business practice. |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 8:35 PM on 10.10.07 |
->> I see this case turning into an episode of CSI!!
I bet that on TV a 12 Lb lens falling from 50 feet "WILL" crack someones skull!!
But then again, I bet it would have the same effect in real life.
I had a minor skull fracture with a 36 bat that skimmed the top of my head back in 1976. |
|
Mark Smith, Photographer
|
Elk City | OK | USA | Posted: 8:59 PM on 10.10.07 |
->> "You know the feeling most of us have when we see someone on the sidelines with their point and shoot camera?
I imagine it is the same way a legal professional would feel if they read the ruminations of photographers on the legal merits, strategy and precedents as applied to this case...."
Very true, Bruce, but at least no one is offering to represent the guy for free, just so we can get a good seat in the courtroom, and we have a great job that pays the bills, so we don't have to make as much on our law practice. |
|
Byron Hetzler, Photographer
|
Granby | CO | USA | Posted: 9:02 PM on 10.10.07 |
->> It wouldn't kill him if it hit him "on the back of the head" and it wasn't dead-on, which (go figure) the story says. Either way, it wasn't traveling that fast after just 50 feet and 12 pounds isn't that much weight. I suppose this is where we all pretend to be doctors and physicists.
According to my calculations (taking into consideration that I haven't had to figure this stuff out in years) using the formula for determining how far an object falling from rest will fall after a period of time:
d=0.5 x g x t2 (that's time squared)
where d is the distance traveled, or in this case 15.24 meters (=50 ft.), g is the acceleration of gravity on earth (9.8 meters/second2). We can determine that it would take 1.76 seconds for the object to fall 15.24 meters.
Then using the formula for acceleration v=g x t we can use our 1.76 seconds to determine that after 1.76 seconds our object will be traveling 17.28 meters per second or 38.6 miles per hour.
In any event, OUCH! |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 9:44 PM on 10.10.07 |
| ->> I suck at math...as many of you remember from my math debacle when figuring out how many frames that dude shot over the course of a game (thanks mr. frakes) but I don't care how friggin' fast a 600 f4 is falling, I don't wanna get hit with it if it falls off the monopod on my foot. Fifty feet? fahhhhgetttaboutit! |
|
Jim Urquhart, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 10:29 PM on 10.10.07 |
->> The man's brains do not need to be splattered all over his wife for a significant injury to take place. Seriously, no amount of physics and math are going to help anyone out.
Here is an example. Biker (cyclist... me) at very low speed, less than five miles an hour, gets wheel jammed and goes over bars landing on my head. Falling maybe a total distance of 5 to 6feet. Yes, I am short. No visible injuries. Initially checked out at a hospital and passed all the neurological function test.
BUT after 18 hours of a horrible headache it is discovered I have ruptured arteries in the brain and a fractured skull. A blood clot formed on the right side and basically squished everything up against the left side where my brain still sits today. The Injury resulting in permanent brain damage and spending two years learning to walk and talk again. Long term issues with fine motor control remain.
So... yes, this guy could have even walked it off at first and has been struggling ever since.
For the photographer, I hope this suit has no merit ... however, playing CSI and condemning anyone, including the plaintiff, will not bring any answers.
FYI, none of the injuries damaged ability for consortium!
Thanks,
Jimmy |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 11:40 PM on 10.10.07 |
->> (First off Bill, I know you're reading this post and I promise you, this is my last. The idiocy has reached unfathomable levels now. I'm sorry, but I have one last thing to say...)
Thomas Boydston- nobody is holding a gun to your head telling you to be an ass, you're choosing to do that on your own accord. I'm almost shocked and definitely appalled that you're brushing off the danger of this event. Of course speed or mass don't kill you, it's those variables plugged in to an equation you apparently never learned in high school.
Since you challenged folks to use a calculator, I did...
Ray Chapman, the only major leaguer ever killed during a game was struck in the head by a pitch. A 146 gram ball traveling at a 92mph (moderate estimate; not sure what pitching speeds were in 1920) impacted his head with 145.94 joules of energy. More recently Mike Coolbaugh was killed in the first base coaching box by a line drive. Since you like mythbusters, you'll know from the baseball episode that a ball leaves the bat at around 50-60% of the pitch speed, or on the high estimate, 50-60 mph, a mere 52.94 joules... Less force than slamming a heavy door.
In March 2002 a girl was killed by a hockey puck 15 rows up at an NHL game. A 163 gram puck (avg) stuck her in the forehead snapping her head back and severing an artery. The impact force of the puck was roughly 162.93 joules. I on the other hand was also struck in the face by a slap shot and only broke my face. When I heard the story of Brittanie Cecil I counted my lucky stars that I too wasn't pushing up daisies. She didn't even break her skull and died, I broke my skull and lived.
Now then, lets up the ante to a 5443 gram lens hitting you in the head at a speed of 38.66 MPH. (the slowest speed so far.) That's nets you 812.92 joules. 15 times more force than what killed Coolbaugh.
You can't tell me you're seriously going to sit there and say it's not dangerous when presented with facts and figures as I just outlined above with force impact loads 1/5th of the kinetic energy of a lens with the provided parameters.
But hey, according to you we're just being armchair physicists so you should really take what I said with a grain of salt. Tell Cecil, Coolbaugh and Chapman they were just being hypochondriacs while the rest of us work at being careful. (Johnny, that isn't meant to be an insult, accidents happen.)
I didn't know about this story until just today and I'm sort of cringing. I only have $1M in liability coverage at the moment because I was changing policies. If this would have happened to me, as a freelancer, I don't have $1M in assets to cover the remaining amount for the damages not including the attorneys fees. I'd literally lose my house and/or be spending the rest of my life paying off the settlement while still maintaining enough in my coffers to sustain a modest living.
The bottom line is that yes, it could have killed him. If you don't believe so, are you REALLY willing to take that chance?
Adios, I'm logging off the boards for a few months again. |
|
Melissa Wade, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 12:21 AM on 10.11.07 |
->> I wasn't reading Boydston's posts as claiming that it wasn't dangerous or even that it couldn't kill him. Perhaps I misinterpreted, but I believe he was trying to counter those that seemed to believe that the plaintiff must not have been hit and must have a frivolous suit since otherwise he'd be dead.
I understand people wanting to defend a friend or a photographer that they respect, but insinuating that the plaintiff must have lied or exaggerated seems off to me (referring to earlier posts, not Witte's). |
|
Dave Amorde, Photographer
|
Lake Forest | CA | USA | Posted: 12:29 AM on 10.11.07 |
->> --AHEM-- Mr. Witte, not a single word of Mr. Boydston's remarks contradict your point regarding the *potential* seriousness of this matter.
Several individuals, in a rather inept attempt to dismiss the suit as baseless, made claims that *any* impact from a lens of that weight, falling from that height, would cause death, or at least an injury so severe that the poor fool wouldn't be able to converse with a lawyer, much less consort with his wife. Mr. Boydston merely called "Bullsh*t" on the misguided, by pointing out what should be obvious - it is entirely possible, in fact likely, that the "blow" to our soon-to-be-famous litigant was a glancing one. You could be creased by a Mack trunk doing 100mph and walk away, if the contact was only a slight graze. The man may indeed be overstating his injuries, but the simple fact that he lives and breathes isn't an indication of that.
As Mr. Boydston rightly points out, dismissing the man's claims out of hand simply because he is still amongst the living is ridiculous. Equally ridiculous, as Mr. Witte points out, is any attempt to trivialize the nature of what happened - and what could have happened. It only takes a momentary lapse of reason or attention for any of us to cause serious injury or death, should we improperly handle or tie down our equipment. Presuming the baseline story has merit, Mr. Iacono and SI are damn lucky they aren't the target of a wrongful death suit. |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
|
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 12:36 AM on 10.11.07 |
| ->> When someone waits 3 years to file a suit it makes it very suspicious |
|
Brad Penner, Photographer
|
Neptune | NJ | USA | Posted: 12:58 AM on 10.11.07 |
->> David,
The three years isn't suspicious at all. Maybe that's how long it took SI's insurer to deny the claim. Maybe that's how long they've been trying to work out a settlement and finally determined they were getting nowhere. I wouldn't read too much into that.
My problem lies in the "loss of consortium" he's hoping to recover damages for. How can something like that be proven? How can something like that be quantified in a dollar amount? Why not call it pain and suffering? It would certainly fall under suffering, along with the blurred vision.
Because he and his council specifically included that "consortium" complaint, to me they'll now have to prove it, and I know I'm not a doctor or a lawyer, but I'd like to see them try.
It wouldn't have been good enough to file a suit claiming "the lens fell, hit me, and now I have blurred vision and lost $2M in wages?" Even if the effect on their sex life really was that detrimental, there's no way to prove that it was caused by the lens. Is there? To me, that makes the whole thing unbelievable and the entire case suspect.
Again, I'm no doctor or lawyer. Though I suppose I could someday be a juror, so don't try and pull that on me. I'm not buying it. :)
-b. |
|
Jack Kurtz, Photographer
|
Phoenix | AZ | United States | Posted: 12:59 AM on 10.11.07 |
->> unless he just remembered it after the concussion cleared.
jack |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 1:02 AM on 10.11.07 |
| ->> david, that is not entirely true in the legal world. I think if you do some checking you will find a HUGE majority of lawsuits are filed at what many of us would call the last minute....BUT in the legal world are filed near the end of the filing period. it's called strategy....we (as photographers) may not like it but that's the way it is.....not suspicious |
|
Thomas Boydston, Photo Editor, Student/Intern
|
Georgetown | Tx | United States | Posted: 3:34 AM on 10.11.07 |
->> Okay, I've calmed down a good deal. Sorry that I acted in a not so mature way when presenting my rant- that wasn't entirely adult of me. (Another thing Texas Public Schools didn't teach me it seems.)
Just thought I'd throw out this snippet: "In addition to blurred vision and flagging intimacy with his wife Carol, Robert Nagy of Laguna Beach claims in court papers filed yesterday that the accident has cost him $2 million in lost income."
Although I doubt the fellow makes millions a year as it'd put him in an extreme minority, it is entirely possible. Either way, according to the story he is suing because (1) blurred vision, (2) loss of intimacy and (3) $2 million lost in income.
So he's not suing because of his lack of bedtime behaviour or whatever it may be exclusively. Granted it's a more light hearted detail to look at, he has two other very real complains (though one may not be as real depending on his actual salary and how much money he actually lost).
As I value my eyes very much, if I lost my sense of vision because a co-worker conked me on the head with his 600mm from something very preventable I would be needing some retribution as I'd be out of work. If his vision is really that far gone (a detail we aren't entirely sure about though), he might also be suing for future income he lost. Assuming he's making good wage, it is very possible to assume that in the rest of his working lifetime, with good eyes, he'd have another $2 million coming his way though not all at once.
There are a lot of missing details, but assuming this piece of journalism is correct that's what I'm taking from it.
And that my math might be off.
Side Story: While driving with my mom, a hitchhiker stuck his hitching arm in front of her car while she was driving on the side of a road in downtown Austin. Though she was traveling at -approximately- 40mph he still managed to give us the bird with the same hand we hit. Hopefully this homeless fellow wasn't a concert pianist, but through quite a few (reasonably placed) swear words he declined a trip to the hospital and said he'd manage. |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | US | Posted: 9:37 AM on 10.11.07 |
| ->> "Many attorneys routinely consider "loss of consortium" damages as damages for decreased or limited sexual activity between the injured party and the spouse. While this is part of a loss of consortium claim, the term also refers to care, companionship, and affection between the injured party and spouse, whether or not there is a decrease or change in sexual activity." |
|
Geoff Miller, Photographer
|
Portage | MI | USA | Posted: 10:01 AM on 10.11.07 |
->> "My problem lies in the 'loss of consortium' he's hoping to recover damages for. How can something like that be proven? How can something like that be quantified in a dollar amount? Why not call it pain and suffering?"
I'm not taking sides on this one, but like Tom said... "Accidents happen". But the "Loss of Consortium" angle isn't unusual or a sign that the guy is trying to pull a fast one. Even though the newspaper story mentions "intimacy", Loss of Consortium basically means that the wife feels that her relationship with the guy has been sufficiently harmed by the lasting effects of the injury. It could be related to possible lasting neurological damage, or things like marital strife due to long lasting depression as a result of not being able to work due to the injury (I sat on the jury of a malpractice case where such a claim was made). In a nutshell, the wife is claiming that the guy isn't the same guy, as a husband, that he used to be before the alleged injury.
"Loss of Consortium" is a legally recognized concept in tort law. It acknowledges that others beyond the plaintiff may have been "harmed" as the result of something the defendant supposedly did, and as such, may also be due compensation. Legally, the wife can't sue for "pain and suffering".
The bottom line is that without reading the full text of the case and hearing the testimony, you can't really dismiss the claim as merely a "legal trick" or proof that the law suit is bogus.
As for the delay in filing the suite, that'd not uncommon. It may take time to determine that injuries won't fully heal and problems will remain. There's also often a period were both parties, and insurance companies, try to work things out before taking it to court. There can be lots of valid reasons, again, that's not proof of a bogus claim.
In the end, I think it's best for people to sit back and let the process work itself out and hope that the jury does "the right thing", regardless of what that means. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 12:02 PM on 10.11.07 |
->> As other have mentioned the delay in filing is very common.
My son is almost three. He had a severe "incident" with the mohel (rabbi) at his bris (circumcision). As a result my son had to undergo major reconstructive surgery at two weeks old. As a result of this, there is addition surgery he may need to undergo when his body hits puberty as a result of the skin grafts to place the skin back on the shaft of his penis.
While we have lawyers working on the already incurred medical bills , they are hesitant to file any law suit until my son is 16. Under the law with this type of injury and the age of the injured party of the injury at the time it happened we have 18 years to file the law suit.
Why is this? Because we may not know the full extent of the injury or what future surgery may be required in the future when he is done going to correct the problem,
So , three years is not a long time at all to file a medical law suit. |
|
Wesley R. Bush, Photographer
|
Nashville | TN | U.S. | Posted: 1:59 PM on 10.11.07 |
| ->> Delane, that actually answers my question. Thanks for finding that. Interesting. |
|
Jay Connor, Photographer
|
Cambridge | MA | USA | Posted: 5:23 PM on 10.11.07 |
->> I know nothing about the details of this particuar accident but I can tell you, as an orthopedic surgeon in my day job, that a lens of that weight falling that distance can easily be lethal landng on or even grazing someones head.
Thomas - I really appreciate your analysis.
Best
Jay Connor |
|
JohnPaul Greco, Photographer, Assistant
|
Milwaukee | WI | USA | Posted: 10:18 PM on 10.11.07 |
->> I think Myth Busters ought to look into this one..
Something tells me this story would be Busted!
;-)
JP |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 10:47 PM on 10.11.07 |
->> JP,
Go to their Website and ask for it!!
I see Jamie & Adam dropping 600mm lenses into a Ballistic Gel dummy with a human skull inside it or on Busters head with the "G" meter inside. SWEET!!
Y |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 12:28 AM on 10.12.07 |
| ->> come on guys...accidents happen. maybe one happened here, before we start making idiotic statements that EVERYONE on the internet can read maybe someone should refrain from calling mythbusters. geez no wonder witte wants to bail out. pathetic. if you want to get a "funny" maybe you should try another thread that doesn't deal with a pretty serious matter. |
|
Marie Hughes, Photographer
|
Fremont | CA | USA | Posted: 1:57 AM on 10.12.07 |
->> re: "Carol Nagy, his wife of 40 years, seeks to be compensated for “loss of consortium” in her marriage."
This is a pretty typical part of the these kinds of lawsuits. The theory is that if you were hurt seriously enough to be able to sue for the big bucks, then obviously you must have been hurt seriously enough for it to affect your relationship with your wife.
When I was sued for over $1 million dollars, the claim included $100,000 for the wife because I deprived her of the "care and comfort of her spouse for a long period of time". The wife asking for 10% of what the husband asked for was considered typical back then, at least in Indiana where I was sued. |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 2:15 AM on 10.12.07 |
->> Chuck,
My intention wasn't ge be stupid, but this thread, like any Lawsuit, it has two or more sides to it.
1- Is the claim real??(on all or any of the counts)
2-Was the Photographer at fault or negligent??
3-Is the plaintiff exaggerating any or all his claims??
In the end, this is not for us to find out, but for the courts, in all reality, is none of our business unless we were on the jurry, which we are not.
Yes, this is a serious matter.
What should we learn from it??
1-Be careful, very careful.
2-Always carry Business Insurance and Liability Insurance.
Yes, we know, it's very serious, but not that serious to get offended with those how take it lightly!!
BTW, the Mythbusters test might be a test to be done by any or both sides here, to prove or disprove injuries. It is my opinion that a 600mm lens, falling 50 feet could be deadly. But they say glancing blow. What is a glancing blow?? how do you test for a glancing blow?? how do you quantify a glancing blow?? this is impossible to test or quantify.
Lack of consortium?? How can you quantify that??
$2M in loss of income?? What is he?? Doctor?? Lawyer?? Janitor?? His lawyer doesn't want to talk.
Why are we spending so much time on this?? ewven worse, why are we getting mad at each other about this?? Don't we have better things to do?? |
|
Jody Gomez, Photographer
|
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 2:42 AM on 10.12.07 |
->> From the filing (I got a copy of the filing from public record):
4. Plaintiff Robert A. Nagy attended a World Series game on October 24, 2004.
He was seated in an area (box seat) where he had reason to expect to be safe,
and in particular, free from injury from fallng objects.
5. During the game, Defendant John Iacono perched himself in an
inappropriate and dangerous position approximately 50 feet above Plaintif's
box seat from whidh he operated a camera with an attached tripod and a
large telephoto lens.
6. Through his negligence and/ or recklessness, Defendant Iacono did not
adequately secure his camera and attachments, and he lost control and
dropped them. The telephoto lens hit Plaintiff Robert A. Nagy on the back of
his head and neck and shoulders.
7. As a result of Defendant Iacono's negligence and/ or recklessness, Robert A.
Nagy suffered a serious and permanent head/ neck/ shoulder injury, causing
him substantial damages, including medical expense, pain and suffering,
disabilty, and great loss of earning capacity.
12. Plaintiff Carol Nagy has been Plaintiff Robert A. Nagy's wife for 40 years.
She has suffered an ongoing substantial loss of consortium as a result of her
husband's injury, for which she claims compensatory damages.
Plaintiff Robert Nagy suffered head/neck injury resulting in double vision and
related problems. Estimated loss of income up to $2m.
He's also claiming $5,000 in hospital bills and $10,000 doctor bills. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 9:06 AM on 10.12.07 |
| ->> yamil, it's okay buddy. I just don't understand some of the posts kind of acting like IF this did happen how anyone in their right mind would think even a "glancing" blow from something that big from a height of 50 feet wouldn't do any damage. for those who think or don't understand the concept of gravity...try this. take a 15 pound barbell (that's about the weight of a 600mm) . hold it at arms length over your foot...now drop it. lemme know how that "glancing" blow from five or six feet feels. that's all...I'm not mad...I was just a little bored last night.......8) |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 11:00 AM on 10.12.07 |
->> Chuck,
I thikn on the contrary, most folks are saying that if indded someone would get hit by a 600mm lens from 50 feet, even a glancing blow, it could be deadly.
You know how some folks are, they see an opportunity to make money, even dishonestly and they run for it!! maybe the lens fell very close to this guy and brushed him, and now he sees SI and money. If this lens had hit him square on the head, his fellow bystanders would have gotten hurt, with bone fragments and gray mater flying at high speed. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 1:43 PM on 12.12.10 |
| ->> Sorry to dredge this up...anyone know what became of this lawsuit? |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|