There was a Canon S70! When come such another?

February 15, 2007

It is with great sorrow that I must report the passing of a valued member of Team Walkabout – my Canon camera. I appreciate that since I haven’t gotten around to posting any of my photos the significance of this loss won’t be fully apparent. But trust me, it hurts deeply. I am of the "take pictures first, ask questions later" school of traveling. Given the marvel of cost-free digital photography I take hundreds each day. There will be plenty of time when I get home to look at them and figure out if it was a good trip. With my camera gone it is a unique opportunity to look at the world unfiltered through a viewfinder. Who am I kidding – it is a unique opportunity to buy a new toy. The only question is whether to buy one while I am still in New Zealand, where things are pricey and they have a steep VAT, or wait till I get to Singapore in a week which should be an electronics shopping nirvana. In the latter case though, I won't have any photos of my travels through the North Island to not bother posting for you.

My camera died during the single rain storm we experienced on our biking trip. It was in the front compartment of the canvas handle-bar bag on the bike, conveniently placed so that I could get at it without stopping the bike. The rain soaked through and I failed to follow the elementary rule on electronics and water, which I repeat here as a Walkabout public service: if it gets wet, remove the battery immediately and don’t turn it on until it has fully dried out.

Here's the curious thing though – of the nine of us on the bike trip, two others had digital cameras die in the same way in the same rain storm. I ask you – coincidence, or cause of action? Look at it this way – Adventure South provided the bicycles and the bags, they led us on a tour through the wettest part of New Zealand (some 30 feet of rain a year!), their marketing flyers promote photographic opportunities and they know people store cameras in those bags. Assume further that we learn on deposition that a 33% camera attrition rate on their tours is not atypical. And yet they failed to give us any warning of the hazards we faced! Also make the unlikely assumption that there was no effective disclaimer of liability in any of the paper we signed with them (who bothers to read that crap?).

My efforts to organize a class action were met with grumbles about litigious Americans and several lawyers jokes – all of which I have heard before. And I really don’t intend to sue over an almost obsolete $500 camera. I’m not that psychotic. But the elements of a claim do seem to be here (duty of care, breach, damages and causation). And perhaps they should be, since some fear of liability on Adventure South’s part might save some cameras and avoid some aggravation. Or it might just increase costs and reduce availability of bike tours and adventure sports that are a key draw here. And for that reason, or just because of a culture of self reliance, New Zealand has restrictive laws about what claims can be made. I suspect that in the US we have gone too far in the direction of finding a legal recourse for everything that goes wrong. There does need to be a range of middle ground – people do dumb things, stuff happens and it doesn’t always mean you sue someone.

But I don’t think we are nearly as out of whack in the US as some of the anecdotal cases suggest. The infamous McDonalds coffee case is a good example of how things get twisted in the media. The story you hear is that some woman got $3 million for spilling hot coffee on her lap. But there are facts you don’t hear. McDonalds served their coffee at about 180 degrees, 30 degrees hotter than most of their competitors. Their studies showed this enhances flavor for people who add a lot of milk. At temperatures that high a spill will cause third degree burns unless clothing is removed and skin cooled within 10 seconds. The plaintiff experienced severely painful burns on her groin and was disfiguring for life. McDonalds knew of numerous injuries of this type, particularly with coffee served in drive through windows. They had been unsuccessfully sued several hundred times before. Based on their cost/benefit analysis comparing profits from greater coffee sales and risk from lawsuits they chose to continue serving exceptionally hot coffee without any disclosure of the added risk. The $3 million verdict was arrived at by the jury based on a calculation of a single days profit to McDonalds and was their effort to send them some sort of message. It was reduced by the judge. (All this comes from my recollection of an excellent American Lawyer piece written at the time, so my account may be slightly off.)

Based on these facts, I’d say the jury in the McDonalds case was pretty much on target. I’d also say that overall you have far more instances where fear of litigation improves service and drives dangerous products off the market than where it stifles legitimate innovation. Like the Ford Pinto which tended to blow up in any rear end collision, or lawn darts which frequently impaled themselves in children’s sculls. I’m proud to be a lawyer. Of course, I am a corporate lawyer, and not like those ambulance-chasing trial lawyer scum…

Your faithful correspondent,

Walkabout Dave