Originally posted by MRRiley Bill, I assume you are making a comment on our litigious society since you and I both know that the photographer has no "standing" in that matter. However the bride and groom or, in this case the groom, does have "standing" to enforce the contract they had with the photographer.
Mike
Tongue in cheek, for sure, but OTOH, there could be grounds for a class action suit on behalf of every guest who showed up and gave gifts to get their money back, since the bride and groom broke their contract (till death do us part).
As for missing the important shot, yes, the photographer is liable, but as long as he got most of the important shots, the damages to the B&G are mitigated by percentage.
What percentage of importance is the flower toss compared to the ring exchange or first kiss, for example? This is what the courts will need to decide when it hands out damages.
Also, what sort of boilerplate did the studio have in place in it's contract? When I was shooting weddings, I had a clause that released me from this sort of thing for several reasons, one of which was unforeseeable actions on the part of guests.
I wrote that one in after a particularly gruesome wedding where rather aggressive guests and family members seemed to go out of their way to mess up my pictures by jumping in front of me at key moments.
Personally, I don't think the guy has a leg to stand on, and in Canada, this case would likely already have been closed down by a judge.