Re the car problem: my CC company informs me that Irish law requires one to take out insurance in Ireland; in other words, no CC can cover it. So the issue of frequent flier mileage seems at first to be irrelevant. <BR> <BR>On the other hand, I wonder if the legal beagles can tell us if receiving frequent flier miles amounts to receiving 'bailment for hire' such that Anne, in making the travel arrangements, was in the position of a paid travel agent. If I understand it correctly, Anne would thus have to exercise 'great care' in her responsibilities - would this include taking out the rental car company's insurance? <BR> <BR>On the other hand, her companions didn't pay her the frequent flier miles, the CC company did, and at Anne's instigation. So maybe her companions didn't 'hire' her. She would then have to merely practice 'slight care' if I read the above correctly. What would slight care mean in this situation? <BR> <BR>Hmmn, the more I think about this, the more I realize how important it is, when several independent adults choose to travel together, to be aware of the possible liabilities. What if Anne had hit and injured a pedestrian.....yeesh, no wonder there are lawyers.

Amanda and Yolanda are women in their middle twenties. Amanda had borrowed her mother's videocam and that is the one that was left in the cab. (The women had been mugged the night before while walking from the train to the hotel on the outskirts of Paris..a ten minute walk, and so on the night in question decided to take a cab from the train station to the hotel out of fear). That is probably why they forgot to check the cab...they were running from the cab to the hotel because they were afraid because of what happened the night before. Amanda's mother does not want to claim it on her insurance....I am not sure why. Amanda and Yolanda are still in Paris and Amanda is insisting that Yolanda replace her mother's camera and her mother agrees with Amanda. She has said that it is a little over a year old and that she will depreciate it for that year. Yolanda feels terrible about the camera being left in the cab <BR>and wants to do the right thing. (Neither one has any extra money..it will be a hardship for whichever one replaces the camera) Your input is much appreciated....could you please explain WHY you feel the way you do? It will help Yolanda make the best decision.

Others have explained why. I will too : <BR> <BR>1)It's Amanda's camera (or her mother's..it doesn't make a difference..it was anyway under her responsability). She was supposed to take care of her belongings. Especially if the camera was just beside her in the cab. It's not like Yolanda would have been alone with the camera for whatever reason. <BR> <BR>2)Yolanda didn't borrow the camera or ask Amanda if she could use it. She merely agreed to bring it because the owner was tired. She rendered Amanda a service. Not the other way around. <BR> <BR>3)That's a new argument, and this one is absolutely undisputable, IMO : if amanda's mother doesn't want to claim it on her insurance though she could, for whatever reason, it's her choice. And I see absolutely no reason why Yolanda would have to pay for a camera just because the owner doesn't feel like involving her insurance. <BR> <BR> <BR>My final opinion would be : Yolanda made an error : she should have made sure to take the camera and to forget Amanda in the cab instead (and her mother too)

Ah, you ask good questions, Mac. You may get that law degree yet. <BR> <BR>As for whether Anne's handling of the travel arrangements creates a bailment for hire concerning the rental car, well, nice try. A bailment is essentially when someone takes charge of the personal property of another. So in the case of the videocamera, there is a bailment, so you get into the question of what kind of bailment and what standard of care must be used by the person holding the property. <BR> <BR>In the car case, I doubt that Anne received compensation from her traveling companions to create an employment relationship. The frequent flier miles she received are only incidental to her arranging everything. So I don't think Anne owes her travel companions any special standard of care re the car accident. Under the law, the driver who causes an accident is liable. Passenger only have an obligation to look upset about it and say things like, "Oh man. What a bummer." <BR> <BR>But if Anne could be construed to be the employee of her travel companions, she's still not off the hook. The boss is liable to third parties for the negligence of the employee. But the boss can sue the employee if the employee was negligent. So either way, Anne was at fault, so Anne pays.

topping

If Amanda values Yolanda's friendship, she should just forget about this. If Amanda's homeowner's insurance covers this, fine. If not, it is just something bad that happened on vacation. <BR> <BR>Not everything should end in a lawsuit. Sometime a friendship is worth more than whatever money would be collected--and I speak from the perspective of being a litigation attorney in real life and real life.

Judge Wapner, thanks for your reply. I shall treasure 'bailment for hire' along with 'parthenogenesis' as terms that I hope to casually drop at cocktail parties, in hopes of making an impression.... <BR> <BR>I take it that as legal consultant, you will not accept frequent flier miles as payment.... <BR> <BR>Now, to get back to Amanda. My legal ignorance having been made publicly known, I can but give a lay opinion. <BR> <BR>Amanda and Yolanda should 'realize' that the videocamera never was in the taxi with them in the first place, the mugger stole it the night before. Now, if Yolanda happened to be holding the camera when the fiend ripped it from her hands, is she responsible? Due care, even if it is hers, surely should not involve putting her life in jeopardy. <BR> <BR> <BR>

Here's another question: If two couples go out to dinner together, and one couple has a "buy one, get one free" coupon from an Entertainment book, would you expect them to share the savings with the other couple?

topping

to the top

I don't think the couple with the coupon should have to share the savings with the other couple. After all, the other couple did not help them with the cost of the book.

Let me clarify that Anne has a credit card where she can earn frequent flier mileage. She's not a travel agent, just did most of the planning for the group. Anne received no compensation for making the travel arrangements. <BR> <BR>My father-in-law earns mileage, so anytime my husband and I make a large purchase, we are asked to use his card so he can earn the mileage. <BR> <BR>

Anne's negligent driving is what caused the accident, therefore, she should pay the entire bill. She caused the accident. Shame on her for making the rest feel so guilty that they paid for part of the cost of her careless driving.

To Lawyer on call: I TOTALLY agree that Anne should have paid! Unfortunately, the others did pay and unfortunately they didn't stand their ground.

Do we just dismiss the obvious? Anne, after carelessly damaging the car to such an extent that it was not drivable, and being so angry at her stingy traveling companions that she could no longer enjoy the trip, fled to Paris where she took a taxi that previously occupied by Amanda and Yolanda. The two young women were too upset when exiting the taxi to remember the video camera, distraught over the horrendous scene in the restaurant where two couples were in a knock-down, drag-out fight over a coupon book.

Well, so who gets the coupon book? And where can I get one? Is it good for travel? Does Clara have one?

Thanks for all the votes! It looks like every one of you feel that Amanda is responsible for paying for the new camera. Now, do you have any ideas how Yolanda can tell Amanda in a way that preserves the friendship, that she thinks Amanda should buy the camera herself? Very delicate situation...

While I believe that the OVERALL responsibility falls to Amanda (it was her/her mother's belonging, therefore, responsibility for its safekeeping is ultimately hers), the fact remains that Yolanda was holding it voluntarily when it was left in the taxi. When Amanda asked her to hold it, she said yes. Even if she said: "It's your damn camera, I don't want to hold it, it's heavy, if you didn't want to carry it, you should not have brought it, I'm tired to . . . " she DID eventually agree to carry it. And then she lost it. The ULTIMATE responsibility (particularly to the mother) is on Amanda, but that doesn't let Yolanda off the hook. She agreed to carry it, and then she lost it. She lost it, she replaces it. <BR> <BR>What if Yolanda, instead of losing it, had SOLD it to a passerby on the street? Would her argument have been: "Well, if you wanted to keep it, you certainly should not have given it to ME!"?? <BR> <BR>Amanda said "Please carry this." Yolanda said "Ok, I'll carry it." Then Yolanda left it in the taxi. YOLANDA lost it, not Amanda. <BR> <BR>The point of any payment is replacement. If I were Yolanda, I would first ask Amanda to find out whether or not any insurance either of them (or Amanda's mother) has would cover it. If so, I would only pay any difference that the insurance would not cover. If there is no insurance, I would then either replace it myself in a store, or offer reimbursement upon being given a receipt. I would not offer any cash, since the point of any reimbursement is to replace the camera, not to give Amanda and her mother extra cash.

to the top

I have rethought this and I think that each girl should pay half. Amanda had utlimate responsibility but Yolanda in agreeing to carry it shares responsibility. This is the only fair way and one which will maintain thier friendship. It is an expensive lesson but will also help them to remember in the future. <BR> <BR>Definitely each bears responsibility. Yoklanda can't just turn around and say,"Oh well, I was doing you a favor therefore I don't need to pay for the loss. It was in her "safekeeping " when the loss happened. <BR> <BR>Each pay half!