If a picture is worth 1000 words, how much is that in cash? Lost Vacation Pictures Worth Thousands

AP ^ | Jun 9, 2003

[new cruelty]

If a picture is worth a thousand words, how much is that in cash?

For Mark McCarthy, who sued a supermarket and Kodak when they lost his vacation photos, it was worth $8,000 — the sum the two companies agreed to pay him in an out-of-court settlement, according to news reports Monday.

McCarthy, a business consultant, refused to accept it when a Tesco supermarket and Kodak declined to compensate him for losing slides from a January 2002 trip that included pictures of Las Vegas and the Grand Canyon.

At first, Kodak and Tesco said they were only prepared to offer him new film, the 41-year-old McCarthy, from Potters Bar, north of London, told the Daily Mail tabloid.

"I eventually established that the slides had arrived at Kodak's processing laboratory ... and they confirmed that they had developed them to be returned to Tesco, but after that the trail went cold," he said.

Under the agreement, neither company was prepared to comment on the case. A Tesco spokeswoman said the company will continue looking for the slides for a year.

[new cruelty]

I found your pictures, Mark!

[jim_trent]

Every film bag I ever filled out and dropped a can of film in says that if they are lost, you will be compensated the cost of the film alone. If he did not want to take this chance, he should have developed them himself.

[SengirV]

Now, if we could only sue the post office for every piece of lost mail, we'd all be rich!!!

[tuna_battle_slight_return]

This is a case of 732,480 Hour Photo.

[new cruelty]

BWHAHA!

[Hermann the Cherusker]

This is why you should stick with one hour photo or camera shops the develop slides in house. You can't lose what doesn't leave the building.

[Petruchio]

That is until the developing mach. eats the film . . .

[Atlas Sneezed]

If I have to pay a (very) little extra for processing each roll to compensate for lost film, knowing that I would get the same compensation, I would put the compensation at about $1000 per roll, maybe more.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Easy to say on black and whites - not so on color. Not to mention the lab you have to buy to do that.

Those sorts of liability limiting schemes are crap - because if you're in business to do something that involves taking in items, you damn well best be sure to return those at the end.

[jim_trent]

There is no way in hell anyone can guarantee 100% return on hundereds of thousands of pictures per year, especially when they change hands several times between the dropoff and the pickup. The only question is what the damages will be when some are lost. I have heard of a couple of other times when wedding pictures or vacation pictures have been lost and the people have sued for the total cost of the wedding or vacation. Not only is that unrealistic, it has not been very successful. BTW, I have developed color film. It is quite a bit harder than B&W, but not impossible. If a person wants an absolute guarantee, they should be willing to pay for the extra insurance or do it themselves.

[kitkat]

***Every film bag I ever filled out and dropped a can of film in says that if they are lost, you will be compensated the cost of the film alone. If he did not want to take this chance, he should have developed them himself.***

I've always wondered about those disclaimers, jim. A dry cleaners totally destroyed my husband's best suit, and said the disclaimer on their receipt totally exhonorated them from being responsible; sewing patterns specifically state that in case of an error in the pattern they are only responsible for the cost of the pattern and not the fabric and time lost.

Those two incidents are many years old, so I'm not pursuing a claim, but I'm curious whether just putting a disclaimer on a product protects the business or manufacturer.

If it does, I'm going to put a sign on my car saying that I am not responsible for anyone hurt in it or by it.

Any lawyers here care to comment?

[Doomonyou]

Go Digital!

[jim_trent]

I am not a lawyer (and I don't play on on TV), but I have to deal with them a lot. My understanding is that the disclaimers are not an absolute defense, but they help. Accidents happen. A good business will make reasonable accomodations. That should be enough. People who want to repeat their wedding, honeymoon, or vacation at someone elses expense are being rediculous.

[gcruse]

People who want to repeat their wedding, honeymoon, or vacation at someone elses expense are being rediculous.

The difference here is that weddings are usually taken by pro photographers who charge lotsa bucks.
They are under a heavier obligation than a photofinisher charging maybe ten dollars an order.  Professional
laboratories and pro photographers have reputations that make or break them.
They better have happy customers or they die.

[kitkat]

I agree that people attempting to get a big settlement can be ridiculous. The cases I used were a good suit being ruined by the cleaners and fabric wasted because of a mistake in a pattern. It would seem to me that the proper recompense should be the cost of the suit or the fabric. Yet, the disclaimer used in both cases denied anything but the price of the vendor's product, i.e. the cleaner's cost and the price of the pattern.

Thanks for the information. I'm intrigued by your statement that a disclaimer is not legally binding, but could help. Thanks again.

[petuniasevan]

Same thing happened to my aunt's vacation photos at a Fotomat.

This is why I bought a DIGITAL camera, specifically a Sony Mavica CD-400. I just got back from vacation with over 600, repeat 600, photos on disc. No film to develop!

[jim_trent]

A good place would have worked out a better compromise. But, I am willing to bet you never went back there again. When I don't receive good service, I never go back.

I did not exactly say that a disclaimer is not legally binding. First, you have to hire a lawyer and go to court in order to force anything more than they are willing to offer. The cost usually means they have the upper hand (you could try small claims court, but I have not seen much good come from them). If you had to sign anything in advance of the "accident" that included the disclaimer, and it was printed in legible, easy to understand print (whether or not you read it), you probably would not have a chance of collecting.

If you did not sign anything in advance, or it is difficult to read or understand, that weakens their case. That does not automatically mean you will win, but it will help. That is why posting a disclaimer on your car is pretty much useless. If they don't sign something in advance of an accident saying that they agree to your terms, you would not have much of a case. Also, I believe that there has to be something of value exchanged (ie. they would receive no benefit from absolving you even if they did sign something).

When it comes to lawyers, however, you will never get a definitive answer to any question. It all depends on how much you want to spend with them. However, I am willing to bet that if I have said anything wrong, some lawyer will correct me.

[csvset]

[supercat]

This is why I bought a DIGITAL camera, specifically a Sony Mavica CD-400. I just got back from vacation with over 600, repeat 600, photos on disc. No film to develop!

Great until the camera gets stolen (mine was on my wedding day--grrrrr)