Oooops! No Video!

[markp64]

What is the name of your state? Nevada

I am a videographer in Las Vegas at a large well known hotel casino. I work in the wedding department and film weddings. I'll get right to the chase, A wedding was booked, actually a renewal wedding of an older couple who requested and purchased video to be shot at one of the indoor chapels. The indoor chapels have 3 remote cameras to videotape from different angles. We record directly to a analog VCR tape then burn to DVD. The VHS tape needs to be uploaded to a computer. While the tape was in the VCR, someone inadvertantly recorded over the wedding.

We have shot literally thousands of weddings over the last 8 years and this is a first. The customer says now he wants to sue for 'gross negligence'. We have not only offered him his money back for the WHOLE wedding ($3,000)(Video service is only $250), but also have offered to re-shoot the ceremony for them so at least they have something on tape. (Again, it was a renewal, no gown or bridesmaids, bestman, bouquets etc.)

Personally, I don't see that he has any case because we have offered ALL of his money back. Maybe small claims. They are claiming emotional distress. We have tried to mitigate the situation to no avail.

Do they have a case? Thanks in advance.

 

[justalayman]

and what does your contract say regarding such mishaps?

 

[markp64]

Contract

The contract states:

Casino/Hotel acknowledges that film, photographs, digital files, and video can be damaged by a variety of factors. The wedding couple assumes all risk of such damages and herein waives any and all claims or warranties against Casino/Hotel or their agentswho may process said film, photographs, digital files, or video, including any and all incidental and consequential damages."

 

[quincy]

They waived all claims against the Hotel. I see no successful suit here.

 

[markp64]

No Contract

Hypothetically, what if they did not sign a contract? They are claiming emotional distress because their renewal video was not shot that they paid for. Again they were offered ALL of their money back for the video and were also offered ALL of the money back for the entire wedding. We also offered to 'reshoot' the renewal which they turned down. They claimed 'gross negligence' on our part.

1. If there is not signed contract, can they:

1. Sue for gross negligence
2. Sue for punitive damages

P.S. The total amount that they spent for everything was $900

Thanks

 

[cbg]

Think about this for a minute.

You go in front of a judge.

Client: "Judge, they didn't shoot the video. That's emotional distress and we want them punished.

You: Judge, we offered to reshoot the video: they turned us down. We also offered to refund them the entire amount they spent, which is over and above what they paid for the video, and they turned us down. And here's a copy of the contract in which they waived any claims.

You're the judge. Who are you going to find is being more reasonable?

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

Are you an employee of the casino? Or are you contracted?

And was a contract signed?

 

[markp64]

No Contract

Thanks for the responses. I just found out yesterday that a photo/video contract was NOT signed.

I am not an employee of the casino. I am employed by a photography studio that is contracted by the casino. They are trying to take this all the way to see how much money they can extract from the hotel or the company I work for.

The woman has had a couple of heart attacks, prior to the ceremony, and claims that she has had to up her medication. Again, I don't see a case here. Someone said that they actually can take this to a civil proceeding even though the amount they spent, $900, would be a small claims case.

Thanks

 

[seniorjudge]

...
You're the judge. Who are you going to find is being more reasonable?
....

Our poster.

The plaintiffs here believe the mainstream media's hype that there is a lawsuit lottery just waiting to be won.

Poster, countersue for filing a frivolous lawsuit and ask for them to be barred from small claims court for a year.

 

[quincy]

I am in disagreement with most of the others who posted here.

If this couple gave you $900 to film their wedding ceremony and no contract was signed waiving any rights, an implied contract was made that said: We will film your wedding for $900 and give you the video. And you failed to deliver as promised.

It is all well and good to say you will reshoot the ceremony, but let me, like cbg, give you a sample exchange:

"We wil re-do your ceremony for you."
"But Aunt Mildred just flew home and she said the funniest thing during the ceremony."
"That's OK, our bellhop Jimmy will fill in. Just laugh like you did last time."

I'm sorry. But by not having a contract signed that waived all rights should something get screwed up, you screwed up.

 

[cbg]

Except that they DID have a contract. Read post #3.

 

[quincy]

But they DIDN'T have a contract. Read post #8.

 

[kdhohio]

Thanks for the responses. I just found out yesterday that a photo/video contract was NOT signed

.

Post#8

 

[markp64]

Yes we screwed up!

Ok. I agree with quincy, we screwed up! Now what? We offered to give every penny back. They said no and have contacted their lawyer who is waiting to hear from the hotel's lawyer.

Question: If we offer their money back and they say no, what case do they have. I asume the judge will ask what the price of the video package which we would respond $250. We are offering $900 back which is the total of the WHOLE wedding package. Any thoughts?

 

[CJane]

We are offering $900 back which is the total of the WHOLE wedding package. Any thoughts?

I'm a little confused.

In your original post, you said the whole package was $3000. That's a significant difference.

And frankly, unless they live right down the street, it's not exactly a 'bargain' to have to fly back out to Vegas, reschedule a new renewal, reinvite guests, etc because YOU couldn't be trusted to 1) get that contract signed and 2) do your job properly.