According to the video, he son was not “well-supervised”. But like many parents she’s teaching her son the valuable life lesson of “it’s somebody else’s fault”.
With the wedding reception being at an art museum, It would be interesting to know if the invitation was for adults only and she choose to bring her son anyway. Adults are responsible for the damage they or their minor children cause.
Hardly newsworthy. Nothing more than a typical Section II homeowners insurance policy claim. It will no doubt be buried in among the dog bite, and slip and fall cases on the casualty adjuster’s desk.
On the other hand, there is almost a prima facie case of negligent display on the part of the art gallery. In the instnt case we have artwork MADE OF GLASS inadequately secured to the display pedestal. If this occurred in a Wal-Mart, Home Depot or Costco store their loss prevention folks would no doubt be taking stern actions against store personnel.
The child no doubt qualified for INVITEE status in the facility, and if he suffered any bodily or psychological injury from the incident his potential counter claim would probably far exceed a blob of broken glass
It is newsworthy. You are commenting are you not? But you bring up some valid points. It was not properly secured. There was no rope or sign. Since the facility is used for weddings, what if the gathering was very large and adult merely backed into the glob of glass while holding a conversation at the reception. It would have tumbled off the base and caused someone great harm! The city/facility knows this and they are seizing the opportunity to avoid looking like stooges.
Also as a former claims adjuster, I assure that an adjuster wants that “hot mess” off their desk ASAP.
I don’t think the gallery would necessarily win a suit. Right now it’s just a bill. Is that what the piece cost? It isn’t worth anymore than the material used until someone pays for it. Even an appraiser might not agree that it’s worth that much. That kid could have been injured, maimed, killed. How about charging gallery with reckless endangerment and presenting an attractive nuisance? How do art spaces get away with displaying pieces in this way? The piece wasn’t stabilized in any way. It wasn’t guarded or protected. It was on a tall, narrow pedestal. These sorts of things need to be addressed. This is dangerous and it’s the space that is being irresponsible.
….ok, enough. You don’t own it…don’t touch it. We all know that. If you dare to touch it/move it/jostle it, YOU are responsible for what happens. Doesn’t matter if the piece was properly tied down or not…..it was on display in an art gallery, and wasn’t your property, it wasn’t in your house, and YOU as the adult are responsible for your children.
i.e….if a car is just parked there no issue….if a child hops in and slips the transmission into neutral….his/her action causes an incident, the car has just been acted upon. Action was taken by the child which caused a reaction.
Enough of this victim mentality!
I am sure there was insurance for the piece so it will be taken care of. The insurance company SHOULD subrogate after the parents of the child.
I would think the attractive nuisance argument would carry a lot of weight if this claim goes to litigation. The child was only five years old and while you can (and should) question the judgement of allowing a five year old anywhere near an artwork of any meaningful value, there hasn’t been any evidence I’ve seen presented that any special care was taken in the placement or protection of the artwork, nor in limiting access to the area where the art was shown that would have discouraged or prohibited access to a five year old.
I agree. Which responsible & thinking organization or person exposes an unprotected $132,000 piece of sculpture to the public, including small children without some protection for the sculpture. The exhibitors should be sued for exposing the child to hazardous conditions.
The parents are responsible but in today’s world the lawyers will get rich and the kid will pay the price because his parents refuse to parent him. It is unfortunate. I saw the video – the kids come barreling in from somewhere and start yanking on the artwork and it comes down -which was the desired result. “Reasonable” comes into play here on a few different levels. For the parent to say that their child was supervised is just not true according to the video.
The video I saw shows the kid climbing up on the pedestal the statue was sitting on and hanging onto the statue until it fell off. The child was not being supervised, the parents were in another part of the center. It did not look like it would have just fallen if someone bumped into it.
The curator said the sculpture had clips on it. Wouldn’t have fallen had the little monkey not climbed on it and pulled it over. An active boy should have not been allowed in there. Probably on Ritalin.
According to the video, he son was not “well-supervised”. But like many parents she’s teaching her son the valuable life lesson of “it’s somebody else’s fault”.
I saw the video too.
It wasn’t crowded and she wasn’t watching her kid.
With the wedding reception being at an art museum, It would be interesting to know if the invitation was for adults only and she choose to bring her son anyway. Adults are responsible for the damage they or their minor children cause.
Hardly newsworthy. Nothing more than a typical Section II homeowners insurance policy claim. It will no doubt be buried in among the dog bite, and slip and fall cases on the casualty adjuster’s desk.
On the other hand, there is almost a prima facie case of negligent display on the part of the art gallery. In the instnt case we have artwork MADE OF GLASS inadequately secured to the display pedestal. If this occurred in a Wal-Mart, Home Depot or Costco store their loss prevention folks would no doubt be taking stern actions against store personnel.
The child no doubt qualified for INVITEE status in the facility, and if he suffered any bodily or psychological injury from the incident his potential counter claim would probably far exceed a blob of broken glass
It is newsworthy. You are commenting are you not? But you bring up some valid points. It was not properly secured. There was no rope or sign. Since the facility is used for weddings, what if the gathering was very large and adult merely backed into the glob of glass while holding a conversation at the reception. It would have tumbled off the base and caused someone great harm! The city/facility knows this and they are seizing the opportunity to avoid looking like stooges.
Also as a former claims adjuster, I assure that an adjuster wants that “hot mess” off their desk ASAP.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Nice try but the bottom line is that the burden is on the parents to supervise their kid. They did not. They are responsible and should pay..
….ok, enough. You don’t own it…don’t touch it. We all know that. If you dare to touch it/move it/jostle it, YOU are responsible for what happens. Doesn’t matter if the piece was properly tied down or not…..it was on display in an art gallery, and wasn’t your property, it wasn’t in your house, and YOU as the adult are responsible for your children.
i.e….if a car is just parked there no issue….if a child hops in and slips the transmission into neutral….his/her action causes an incident, the car has just been acted upon. Action was taken by the child which caused a reaction.
Enough of this victim mentality!
I am sure there was insurance for the piece so it will be taken care of. The insurance company SHOULD subrogate after the parents of the child.
I would think the attractive nuisance argument would carry a lot of weight if this claim goes to litigation. The child was only five years old and while you can (and should) question the judgement of allowing a five year old anywhere near an artwork of any meaningful value, there hasn’t been any evidence I’ve seen presented that any special care was taken in the placement or protection of the artwork, nor in limiting access to the area where the art was shown that would have discouraged or prohibited access to a five year old.
I agree. Which responsible & thinking organization or person exposes an unprotected $132,000 piece of sculpture to the public, including small children without some protection for the sculpture. The exhibitors should be sued for exposing the child to hazardous conditions.
The parents are responsible but in today’s world the lawyers will get rich and the kid will pay the price because his parents refuse to parent him. It is unfortunate. I saw the video – the kids come barreling in from somewhere and start yanking on the artwork and it comes down -which was the desired result. “Reasonable” comes into play here on a few different levels. For the parent to say that their child was supervised is just not true according to the video.
Video of the incident, courtesy of KCTV Channel 5 in Overland Park, KS:
http://www.kctv5.com/story/38457310/video-5-year-old-knocks-over-132k-sculpture-overland-park-wants-parents-to-pay
The video I saw shows the kid climbing up on the pedestal the statue was sitting on and hanging onto the statue until it fell off. The child was not being supervised, the parents were in another part of the center. It did not look like it would have just fallen if someone bumped into it.
The curator said the sculpture had clips on it. Wouldn’t have fallen had the little monkey not climbed on it and pulled it over. An active boy should have not been allowed in there. Probably on Ritalin.
Why doesn’t anyone question the valuation of the sculpture? What went into the bill for $132k. The value seems arbitrary.