Camera owners are ‘butterfingers’
August 6, 2008
Nearly one in ten camera owners fell over while taking their shots – often into water ? according to disasters documented by a UK insurance company.
?Many photographers admit to perching precariously to get the shot they are after and this leads to accidents,? said a spokesman for the Domestic & General survey, which brands camera owners as ?butterfingers?.
Almost three quarters of claims arise from the owner dropping their camera onto a hard surface, into water or falling while holding their camera.
Dogs and children are blamed in one in six cases, state the results of analysis by the insurance firm.
Overall, one in four claims stem from the photographer dropping the camera into water ? ranging from baths to rock pools and rivers.
In 9% of cases the owner fell over with the camera in their hand or pocket, while 3% of claims arose from the owner ?running over the camera in a car?.
Domestic & General has published extracts from claims it received over a six month period:
One photographer reported: ?I was taking some shots in the garden. As I changed the lens I lost my grip on the camera. I tried to cushion its fall by sticking out my foot but ended up ?volleying? it across the concrete slabs and down the steps.?
Another wrote: ?I packed the camera into a travel bag for a family day out and loaded the car up. When I started to drive off I heard a pop. I got out and checked the tyre but when I looked I saw the camera on the road. It had fallen out of the bag and I had accidentally driven over it in the car.?
In one claim a camera owner said: ?I slipped on the damp ground and the camera fell out of my hands and down the cliff face and onto the rocks below.?
In another case insurers were told: ?My children bumped into me by the swimming pool and I fell in with the camera in my hand.?
Here?s one more: ?The damage occurred as I was changing lenses. One of my dogs ran into my tripod, knocking it over into the water. So, my camera landed face down in the river.?
The results were based on 88 ‘camera claims’ received between 10 October 2007 and 10 April 2008.