lol rocky sucks at backing cars up

Go with option A. It may not be the fairest, but it won't ruin any friendships.

Option A sounds the best considering the situation, $333 each aint bad. Since you guys are debating it, it sounds like maybe everyone is on a tight budget, so that would be least painful on the wallet.

I think it is a necessity that both Bill and Jim cover most of the cost of the camera as they were both directly involved in the breaking of the it. I believe a percentage must be conceived for all parties involved in regards to covering the said breakage. In my opinion, and as option A states, all three members of the stated incident fucked up massively but Ted really got screwed over. I believe a 40/40 break should be made between Bill and Jim. Jim certainly should have done a better job reviewing the scene before he directed Bill to back up, but there are also these cool things called mirrors on all street legal cars that are used for backing up. As for as I can tell the bag with the Sony camera would have been in plain view if Bill had used his mirrors, but perhaps I am wrong. That leaves 20% for Ted. As option A states, Ted should not have placed his bag where he did, even if he did not realize that the car was swinging a 90 degree turn toward his bag until the action was occurring, he should have had the ability to remember where he placed his bag and recognize that it was in harm's way. If Ted has unmentioned short-term memory loss, Bill and Jim shall split the cost off the new camera 50/50. Juror #1 has stated his case.

Even though it may not be the fairest option I believe option "A" should be what you guys decide on. Sure you guys could play the blame game but if you want to stay friends and leave it to rest you should probably just split it 3 ways equally.

if i just spent a grand on something, I wouldnt be just leaving it next to a car. In fairness, it's not the drivers fault or the directors of the cars fault.

I mean if you're all planning on getting clips with the camera it would be legit for you guys to pitch in, but other than the dude who put the thing in harms way it neither of your guys fault.

When it comes to this sort of thing, you need to separate what is a "cause" from what is "negligence". A cause of the broken camera is anything that can be removed from equation and the event simply has a different outcome: Bill moving the car, Ted for placing his bag where he did, Newton's 3rd Law, etc. If Bill doesn't move the car, the bag isn't run over. If Ted placed his bag in a different spot, the bag isn't run over. If Newton's Third Law stops working, the bag isn't run over. These are causes. Negligence, on the other hand, refers to who is at fault- who failed to act appropriately in the situation. Ted placing his bag where he actually did constitutes a cause, not negligence- simply placing his bag there does not necessarily mean it is going to get broken. Bill and Jim are negligent here because both should have made sure that it was safe to operate the vehicle, which they failed to do. Bill, as the operator of the vehicle, should have made sure that where he was going to move the car to was safe and clear- just as if he were backing out into any other driving scenario. Jim, as the look-out, absolutely failed by saying he is good to start backing, when an actual check of the situation would have made this avoidable. Both Bill and Jim acted with negligence because they failed to act appropriately.

Option B is the right option- Bill and Jim should pay more in this scenario because it is their fault that the camera is broken. But for the sake of saving the friendship and not throwing stones at one another, perhaps Option A is the best option- just split it, move on, and learn from the lesson.

In the eyes of the law the driver is probably the only responsible party here and you are all nice to help him out. Even if someone is helping you back up it is your responsibility as the driver to make sure you don't run into anything. Drivers are responsible for their car 100%.

You all are nice to help the driver out. If the guy with the camera will go for the 3 way split then that's probably a good way to go for the sake of the friendship.

Jimmy fucked up the most

I'd even go so far as to say that since Jim could survey the scene and said "Oh you're fine dude", and then watched a car romp a bag with expensive shit in it, 50% should fall to Jim, 40% should fall to Bill, and Ted covers the last 10%.

jim hands down

Y'all dumb as a bag of rocks (or a bag of broken camera).

.lenconY'all dumb as a bag of rocks (or a bag of broken camera).

c'mon. dont act like you've never backed up a suburban over a camera bag before.

DeebieSkeebiesc'mon. dont act like you've never backed up a suburban over a camera bag before.

Fuck, ya got me. Hi errybody. My name is billy

I vote A.

Driver- what are you doing backing up over stuff? Look around your vehicle before moving it.

Signalman- what are you doing telling the operator of the vehicle to move when it's clearly not clear to do so. If you can't tell or haven't checked then the signal should be stop.

Camera Owner- seriously? Let me put my 1000 dollar bag down next to the tire of this truck that my dumbass friends are about to move.

a for sure

everyone failed to use common sense and everyone should have to pay equal amounts

CaseyI vote A.

Driver- what are you doing backing up over stuff? Look around your vehicle before moving it.

Signalman- what are you doing telling the operator of the vehicle to move when it's clearly not clear to do so. If you can't tell or haven't checked then the signal should be stop.

Camera Owner- seriously? Let me put my 1000 dollar bag down next to the tire of this truck that my dumbass friends are about to move.

agreed, everyone involved shares blame here. Option A has the additional bonus of not letting the quibbling over details get too involved. plus im assuming you all are young and not rich and all have an interest in the camera being around and GTSing

I think I'm in the minority here, but I think Ted should be the only one responsible for his camera because he is the one responsible for his camera. The street is no place to put your bag that contains your brand new $1000 camera. Not just the street, but the street next to the wheel of a vehicle you know to be moving in the near future. Also, as soon as Ted knew that the truck was going to be moved to hitch up, his first priority should have been, "Oh shit, I'm dumb for leaving my bag there, hang on guys let me move it before we start." If it started downpouring and the camera was ruined the blame would be entirely on Ted for leaving his camera outside and not being a responsible owner.

Like I said, I'm in the minority it seems, so I expect to see lots of downvotes and probably replies telling me why I'm wrong. I've read all the comments, I understand where you're coming from. It's my opinion that Ted should have been more responsible with his equipment. If the truck was locked, keep your bag on you until you have a safe place for it. Don't leave it on the street because you don't want to carry it.

CaptainObvious.I think I'm in the minority here, but I think Ted should be the only one responsible for his camera because he is the one responsible for his camera. The street is no place to put your bag that contains your brand new $1000 camera. Not just the street, but the street next to the wheel of a vehicle you know to be moving in the near future. Also, as soon as Ted knew that the truck was going to be moved to hitch up, his first priority should have been, "Oh shit, I'm dumb for leaving my bag there, hang on guys let me move it before we start." If it started downpouring and the camera was ruined the blame would be entirely on Ted for leaving his camera outside and not being a responsible owner.

Like I said, I'm in the minority it seems, so I expect to see lots of downvotes and probably replies telling me why I'm wrong. I've read all the comments, I understand where you're coming from. It's my opinion that Ted should have been more responsible with his equipment. If the truck was locked, keep your bag on you until you have a safe place for it. Don't leave it on the street because you don't want to carry it.

i feel that and part of me agrees. my problem with that is that it implies that the others don't have any degree of responsibility just because they don't own the camera. if you hit something with your car, who owns the object doesn't make a difference to the fact that you hit the thing with your car. as for the other guy, if you want to be considered an accountable adult, you shouldn't tell someone they're good to reverse without checking to make sure that they are, in fact, good to reverse

maybe the answer is making camera owner's share of the cost higher than the other two's, but then you're getting into the area of quibbling and subjectivity

SofaKingSicki feel that and part of me agrees. my problem with that is that it implies that the others don't have any degree of responsibility just because they don't own the camera. if you hit something with your car, who owns the object doesn't make a difference to the fact that you hit the thing with your car. as for the other guy, if you want to be considered an accountable adult, you shouldn't tell someone they're good to reverse without checking to make sure that they are, in fact, good to reverse

maybe the answer is making camera owner's share of the cost higher than the other two's, but then you're getting into the area of quibbling and subjectivity

If we're going to take the stance of legality and rules of the road (which could make total sense. look at it like a motoring accident) then Jim is void of all responsibility. If you're driving and one of your passengers tells you you're clear on one side to enter an intersection, yet when you enter the intersection it's not actually clear and your get t-boned, the fault is entirely yours. No other individual can take the responsibility of the driver in the eyes of the law. It's on you, the driver, to know what is around your car and when you're clear to go. As much as is sucks because Jim should have been smarter and more responsible, it was the fault of the driver to trust him.

Personally I don't feel like coming at this as a motoring accident is the correct way to do it. I doubt, from the driver's seat, that Bill could have seen a bag by his rear passenger tire. You can make the argument that Bill should have walked around his car to ensure there was nothing in the way, but I'd be willing to bet that the individuals who say he should have done that, wouldn't have. Inspecting all of your mirrors should be sufficient. Vehicles have blind spots, and lingering (or placing your belongings) in them, is not the driver's fault.

CaptainObvious.If we're going to take the stance of legality and rules of the road (which could make total sense. look at it like a motoring accident) then Jim is void of all responsibility. If you're driving and one of your passengers tells you you're clear on one side to enter an intersection, yet when you enter the intersection it's not actually clear and your get t-boned, the fault is entirely yours. No other individual can take the responsibility of the driver in the eyes of the law. It's on you, the driver, to know what is around your car and when you're clear to go. As much as is sucks because Jim should have been smarter and more responsible, it was the fault of the driver to trust him.

Personally I don't feel like coming at this as a motoring accident is the correct way to do it. I doubt, from the driver's seat, that Bill could have seen a bag by his rear passenger tire. You can make the argument that Bill should have walked around his car to ensure there was nothing in the way, but I'd be willing to bet that the individuals who say he should have done that, wouldn't have. Inspecting all of your mirrors should be sufficient. Vehicles have blind spots, and lingering (or placing your belongings) in them, is not the driver's fault.

what the fuck did you just say about me you little bitch?

no yeah it's a tough call and it's subjective how you approach it. i just like to err to the side of holding people to a high degree of accountability in these situations. otherwise you might adopt a kind of "every man for himself" approach where negligence and a "not my job" mentality is allowed

SofaKingSickwhat the fuck did you just say about me you little bitch?

no yeah it's a tough call and it's subjective how you approach it. i just like to err to the side of holding people to a high degree of accountability in these situations. otherwise you might adopt a kind of "every man for himself" approach where negligence and a "not my job" mentality is allowed

EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF!!!!!!!

SofaKingSickwhat the fuck did you just say about me you little bitch?

no yeah it's a tough call and it's subjective how you approach it. i just like to err to the side of holding people to a high degree of accountability in these situations. otherwise you might adopt a kind of "every man for himself" approach where negligence and a "not my job" mentality is allowed

Apparently I found a hotkey to post my reply. That was supposed to be followed up with:

tru tru. It's not an easy choice by any means. And give that these three guys are friends, it would make the most sense to have all three split it and not have any bad blood. If I were Ted, I wouldn't expect them to pay anything. And if I was Bill or Jim, I would likely offer to pay for a portion of it.

I would vote for option A. On a side note thanks for this thread OP. Most life I have seen in NSG for a while

CaptainObvious.I think I'm in the minority here, but I think Ted should be the only one responsible for his camera because he is the one responsible for his camera. The street is no place to put your bag that contains your brand new $1000 camera. Not just the street, but the street next to the wheel of a vehicle you know to be moving in the near future. Also, as soon as Ted knew that the truck was going to be moved to hitch up, his first priority should have been, "Oh shit, I'm dumb for leaving my bag there, hang on guys let me move it before we start." If it started downpouring and the camera was ruined the blame would be entirely on Ted for leaving his camera outside and not being a responsible owner.

But I think there is a valid distinction between being an agent (person doing something) in the situation and being a patient (person having something done to them) in the situation. It seems like Bill and (to a lesser extent) Jim are the agents here, and Ted is a patient. Agents hold more responsibility than patients, since the agent is, by definition, the one acting upon someone/thing else. Ted is the recipient of the actions of Bill (and Jim). It's like someone breaking into my house through an unlocked door. Yes, I should have locked my door, but the person more responsible is the agent doing the breaking and entering. Otherwise, you are putting blame on the victim for having something done to him that was not his choosing. It is common sense to lock your door, but it's only common when break-ins are frequent and normal. Insurance claims aside and speaking from a purely moral perspective, the person to truly blame is the agent doing the actual breaking and entering. This is somewhat similar (and I stress the somewhat).

To your rain example, that is a different scenario because it lacks a moral agent acting upon the bag. In this scenario, only Ted is to blame for damage that was done since he is the only person involved.

onenerdykidBut I think there is a valid distinction between being an agent (person doing something) in the situation and being a patient (person having something done to them) in the situation. It seems like Bill and (to a lesser extent) Jim are the agents here, and Ted is a patient. Agents hold more responsibility than patients, since the agent is, by definition, the one acting upon someone/thing else. Ted is the recipient of the actions of Bill (and Jim). It's like someone breaking into my house through an unlocked door. Yes, I should have locked my door, but the person more responsible is the agent doing the breaking and entering. Otherwise, you are putting blame on the victim for having something done to him that was not his choosing. It is common sense to lock your door, but it's only common when break-ins are frequent and normal. Insurance claims aside and speaking from a purely moral perspective, the person to truly blame is the agent doing the actual breaking and entering. This is somewhat similar (and I stress the somewhat).

To your rain example, that is a different scenario because it lacks a moral agent acting upon the bag. In this scenario, only Ted is to blame for damage that was done since he is the only person involved.

Except your argument all rests on the fact that Ted placed his bag in an appropriate place and it should have been safe in that location. Which it wasn't. You can't liken this situation to something being stolen because in that instance, the moral agent to be blamed is acting purposefully to cause damage. This is an accident produced from - primarily in my opinion - patient negligence, and - secondarily in my opinion - agent negligence. Had the bag been taken into the house and placed on the floor, there would be no risk of being run over by a vehicle. But it was left on a street where moving vehicles are intended to be. It's more easily compared to a pedestrian hit while jaywalking.

CaptainObvious.Except your argument all rests on the fact that Ted placed his bag in an appropriate place and it should have been safe in that location. Which it wasn't. You can't liken this situation to something being stolen because in that instance, the moral agent to be blamed is acting purposefully to cause damage. This is an accident produced from - primarily in my opinion - patient negligence, and - secondarily in my opinion - agent negligence. Had the bag been taken into the house and placed on the floor, there would be no risk of being run over by a vehicle. But it was left on a street where moving vehicles are intended to be. It's more easily compared to a pedestrian hit while jaywalking.

That's why I said my example was only somewhat analogous. It was mainly meant to demonstrate that there is a difference between people actively doing something, and people having things done to them. In any moral dilemma (or legal dilemma, to my knowledge), the agent is always more to blame than the patient. In this light, Bill has the most to be blamed for since he is agent that is actively destroying the camera, albeit unknowingly. He clearly didn't purposefully set out to do it, but the broken camera is a direct result of him failing to make sure his path was clear. The breakage is a result of his direct negligence (since he was the agent), as opposed to the (arguably) indirect negligence of Ted simply putting his bag near the car (since he was the patient).

A better analogy would be if Bill unintentionally backed directly into Ted, who wasn't paying attention. Ted is standing somewhere he shouldn't be, with his back to the car and can't see Bill, but Bill is ultimately responsible since he is the agent acting in the situation and Ted is merely the recipient of the damage caused by the accident. Sure we could make the excuse that Ted shouldn't have been standing where he was, but ultimately Bill is to blame since he is the agent in this situation. Bill needs to make certain that is way is clear before operating the vehicle. If you would agree that Bill is to blame in this scenario, then he should be to blame for the camera as well since both the camera and Ted shouldn't have been there. And I think you would agree that if you played this out to other examples, genuine victims easily become blameworthy for having something done to them, whether accidentally or purposefully.

Ultimately, we need to identify who is the agent and who is the patient. Bill is the one doing something here (the agent) and as such he bears the lion's share of the responsibility.

onenerdykidA better analogy would be if Bill unintentionally backed directly into Ted, who wasn't paying attention. Ted is standing somewhere he shouldn't be, with his back to the car and can't see Bill, but Bill is ultimately responsible since he is the agent acting in the situation and Ted is merely the recipient of the damage caused by the accident. Sure we could make the excuse that Ted shouldn't have been standing where he was, but ultimately Bill is to blame since he is the agent in this situation. Bill needs to make certain that is way is clear before operating the vehicle. If you would agree that Bill is to blame in this scenario, then he should be to blame for the camera as well since both the camera and Ted shouldn't have been there. And I think you would agree that if you played this out to other examples, genuine victims easily become blameworthy for having something done to them, whether accidentally or purposefully.

.

Aight, you've successfully swayed my opinion. I still feel Ted is not blameless and it shouldn't be fully considered Bill's responsibility, but yes, I'll agree with you that Bill holds the final responsibility of ensuring his path is clear.

We can all agree Jim is and idiot and should be sentenced to a five minute session of naked tubing behind the boat for his idiocy.

Also, I know OP asked in the beginning that neither Jim, Bill, or Ted post in this thread. Meaning they're all probably reading this. So I want to say something to the three of you:

It's just a camera and it was just an accident. Make sure you're understanding where each other is coming from and think about your friends. Cash might be tight so be understanding if someone is being resistant to forking out a few hundred dollars - they may not have it. It might take a couple paychecks before the three of you can put together a grand for a new camera. I hope your weekend was fun regardless of the rough start.

The idiot that didnt take care of his own camera should be the only one paying

What the hell is this shit? The only one responsible here is who left a 1000 dollar camera lying on the ground.

If anyone were to ask me for some compensation, even my best friend, for his fuck up of leaving shit down one can't see from the mirrors, it's on them. Even the audacity to ask for a solution in this is crazy. It's the guy who left shit where it didn't belong for some reason.

I'm also a believer the camera owner who left his stuff in a shit spot should be the one to blame.

For the sake of friendship I'd say if the three of you want to remain friends just split it 3 ways and move on

Or tell the Wyld Stallyns to hop in their time machine and move that shit out of the way to avoid the crisis altogether

By law the driver is responsible. Remaining friends, says split it. But as someone who drives around very expensive equipment often insured over 100gs, it is all places inside a vehicle before it is ever moved or left sight/unseen period. Never leave your camera bag where this could occur. Lesson learned, and get a Pelican case.

Whoever said option A is a bunch of damn commies, do option MURICA. Take all their asses to court...

Accidents happen, share the cost.