I'm really finding reading this thread most stressful, so I hereby give notice that I'm starting court proceedings against all previous (and future) respondents for the distress caused! Please forward your personal details forthwith. If you would like to settle out of court, send big cheques (checks) to me and I'll consider dropping the suit. :-) The worst thing is, as Seven says, the UK are going headlong in following the US. can no one have an "accident" any more?

Baba Ganoush said:
.... Isn't that the way things work in Britain?

Things are changing but at the moment we have imported your no win no fee system.
One way of mitigating being sued to be a limited company , this means if things go bad, you can avoid losing your house and life saving

Baba Ganoush said:
There's an easy way to stem such nuisance suits in the US: make the loser pay. And by that, I mean he pays all court costs and all the legal costs of the winner. Isn't that the way things work in Britain?

I believe that in Britain the loser pays court costs (as they usually do here in the U.S.), but in Britain the loser pays reasonable (not necessarilty actual) atttorney fees and costs, too.

warprints said:
I wonder if there was actually a written contract for the wedding shoot.

A sober reminder, if you do weddings, to make sure sure your clients sign your terms and conditions and you have liability insurance in place

It seems to be getting lost in all the hoopla about the suit coming up 8 years later, the divorce, and all, that the photographer seems to have screwed up the wedding shoot pretty badly. I wonder if there was actually a written contract for the wedding shoot. Some states have a ten year statute of limitations on breach of contract.

If I were on the jury he would get nothing mainly because he waited so long to sue. If you are unhappy with my photo's SUE ME RIGHT AFTER not years later. I know about statute of limitations however in this type of case if you were unhappy then you should have sued.

I stand by my NO MONEY vote if I were on the jury.

The original photographer is retired and his son now runs the business.

One way to deal with this. "Okay, sure - we'll be glad to recreate the wedding for you and reshoot the event. Here is our current contract for shooting weddings. You'll notice that our fees have increased. We'll deduct the cost of your original wedding from our fee schedule - leaving you with a balance of just over $5,000. Will the first Saturday of next month work for you?"

iris chrome said:
There should be a law against unjust lawsuits. I hope the photographer not only wins but gets a good compensation as well.

There's an easy way to stem such nuisance suits in the US: make the loser pay. And by that, I mean he pays all court costs and all the legal costs of the winner. Isn't that the way things work in Britain?

TaoTeJared said:
In the article it said he filed the lawsuit just before the deadline While he was in the middle of his divorce. His father is one of the partners of the law firm as well. And he has been out of work since 2008. Oh and he doesn't even know where his ex-wife lives or knows how to contact her in Latvia.

Lawyers are the only ones who will win at this one.

Yeah, I read the article after I posted (obvious isn't it? :D).... The worst thing in all of this is that the suit has already cost the photographer $50k which is more than what the plaintiff is suing for. There should be a law against unjust lawsuits. I hope the photographer not only wins but gets a good compensation as well.

What a joke. I cannot believe the judge even considered the motion and pushed, what was left of the suit, forward. The judge should have done what we do with a bad shot taken: delete!

I really wish the legal system here could operate with slightly (in some cases, significantly) more reason and common sense and everything else that would be convenient to have in some peoples' heads so stuff like this would never fly.

Correlli said:
Can you imagine being invited as a guest to the re-enacting of a wedding where the couple is divorced since some years? Sounds like a fun party...

It's either you turn it down and get sued for not being there to recreate the wedding, or you go there and get sued for not liking it, or you're a damn fine actor.

Geez, I am glad I don´t live in the US.

iris chrome said:
Isn't there a statute of limitations for this type of stuff?

In the article it said he filed the lawsuit just before the deadline While he was in the middle of his divorce. His father is one of the partners of the law firm as well. And he has been out of work since 2008. Oh and he doesn't even know where his ex-wife lives or knows how to contact her in Latvia.

Lawyers are the only ones who will win at this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeXQBHLIPcw

This lawsuit is just wow! I'm with Michael DeRose on this one :P... I can understand if it was a fauxtog but he would have only paid $300 for it...

living in the land of SUE

you have so many of these silly lawsuits in the US, and people get paid.

dumb

boo

Can you imagine being invited as a guest to the re-enacting of a wedding where the couple is divorced since some years? Sounds like a fun party...

It says when it first happened the photo company yelled at the guy when he contacted them. Sounds like they had good cause to yell...the man is an idiot.

Don't do the logical thing like ask for some money back when it happened, or file a case at that time. Wait 8 years, after you are divorced and then try and reenact the wedding...that is a better idea.

This is one bizarre lawsuit. The plaintiff has to be many cards short of a full deck, and the judge for letting the suit proceed should have her head examined. This is exactly what is wrong with our legal system.

Humm I wonder if "at the end of the wedding", means the photographer missed consummating the marriage???

If he is trying for a retake of this good luck chuck. If I where her I wouldn't want to be found either from what little I know about the story. Just think in about 6 months we will see him on some reality TV show.

Isn't there a statute of limitations for this type of stuff?

mm The guy obviously needs the attention, .....

Happy that this kind of lawsuits is just not possible here where i live.. :-)

good publicity

sounds like he might be off his meds/we know why they got a divorce.

Ridiculous lawsuit is ridiculous.

Some crazy guy is suing a wedding photographer for a wedding done in 2003. He's saying the photographer missed the last bits of the wedding. The issue is that the guy has been divorced since 2010.

The kicker is that the guy that's suing wants the wedding recreated so that they can photograph the event again. However, his wife moved back to Latvia since the divorce and he can't find her now.

How ridiculous is that?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/nyregion/suit-against-photographer-seeks-re-creation-of-wedding-after-divorce.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion