Accidents related to selfie sticks are most often attributed to user negligence rather than property owner negligence.
After being named one of TIME magazine’s 25 best inventions of 2014, the selfie stick has become the object of considerable mockery and derision, especially among those who consider selfies the epitome of our narcissistic pop culture.
The selfie stick has garnered even more notoriety this past year as numerous media outlets have started compiling lists of tragic self-stick-related deaths and injuries.
Here are 7 examples of situations in which a photographer’s search for the perfect shot resulted in their last shot, ever.
- When posing with a gun, a teen from Texas accidentally pulled the trigger instead of pushing the button to take a picture
- Two Russian men died during a selfie posed beside a live grenade
- A Japanese tourist suffered fatal injuries in a fall after trying to get a photo of herself at the Taj Mahal
- A Russian woman fell backwards off a bridge while trying to frame her selfie
- An American woman took a similar fall off a cliff in South Africa
- Three Indian teenagers were killed in a train accident during a selfie session on the tracks
- Electrocution injuries killed teens in Russia and Romania after their selfie sticks touched live wires near train tracks
Selfie Stick Bans Becoming More Common
Many businesses including museums, art galleries, and theme parks like Disney World and Six Flags have banned selfie sticks from their premises, both in order to prevent patrons from being jostled and irritated by the waving wands of other visitors’ selfie sticks and to help prevent selfie-stick users from having accidents.
This might lead some individuals to wonder:
Can a business that has NOT banned selfie sticks be liable for selfie-stick-related injuries that may occur on their premises?
The answer is no. In the vast majority of selfie stick accidents, the injury or death is caused by the user’s own reckless or negligent behavior, rather than by any defect in the premises of the property owner.
And even if a defect was present, the property owner would be able to argue that any accidents were due to the photographer being distracted, since a reasonable person who was not distracted and was watching their surroundings should have been able to avoid injury. There have been similar cases involving individuals slipping or tripping because their eyes were glued to their smartphones in which this type of argument resulted in the property owner being cleared of liability.
Need Advice About a Premises Accident?
If you have been injured on someone else’s property and you are unsure if you might be able to sue for your injuries, the best thing to do is to consult an experienced premises accident attorney like Fernando D. Vargas for personalized advice about your case. Call 909-982-0707 now for your free initial consultation.
