Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-15-2018, 09:24 PM
Shoeless Shoeless is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Sunflower State
Posts: 5,973
Child damages artwork, parents get bill for $132K

Story here.

An unsupervised child knocks over a piece of artwork when trying to climb on it, and the parents are shocked to get a bill from the insurance company for the damages.

The mother, who sounds like a real piece of work herself, claims her special snowflake was just trying to hug it when it fell on top of him. And that he was absolutely not unsupervised, they were just around the corner and down the hall (in other words, completely out of sight).

I'd would not be at all surprised if the family winds up filing a personal injury lawsuit. They don't seem like the kind of people to take any responsibility for what happened.
  #2  
Old 06-15-2018, 09:48 PM
Springtime for Spacers Springtime for Spacers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,821
That looks like an accident waiting to happen and possibly an attractive nuisance to boot. It's a fragile, heavy attractive thing with no protection and unsecured in a public space where the visitors will include excitable children. No the child should not have been trying to climb the plinth and yes the parents should have been watching more closely but I'm not satisfied that makes it the parent's fault. It also looks pretty obvious that the child wasn't trying to be destructive but just wanted to get close to the pretty thing.

I pity the artist whose work was not displayed properly.
  #3  
Old 06-15-2018, 09:49 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 10,244
It sounds like everyone shares some part of the blame.

The child should have been supervised, and shouldn't have been climbing on the art in the first place.

A large statue made mostly of glass should not be displayed in this manner, in a community center, no less; it should have been enclosed, or at least secured so it would be much harder to knock over.

And if I owned anything worth $132,000, I would sure as hell have it insured.

Time for the lawyers and insurance adjusters to sort it out, I guess.

Last edited by nearwildheaven; 06-15-2018 at 09:50 PM.
  #4  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:01 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is online now
Friend of Cecil
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by nearwildheaven View Post
And if I owned anything worth $132,000, I would sure as hell have it insured.

Time for the lawyers and insurance adjusters to sort it out, I guess.
It was insured. It was the insurance company that billed the parents. You don't think insurance companies just eat the loss, do you?
  #5  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:09 PM
Shoeless Shoeless is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Sunflower State
Posts: 5,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
It was insured. It was the insurance company that billed the parents. You don't think insurance companies just eat the loss, do you?
The artist didn't have it insured. It's the city's insurance company that's billing the parents.
  #6  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:15 PM
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 25,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
It was insured. It was the insurance company that billed the parents. You don't think insurance companies just eat the loss, do you?
What Shoeless said.
Quote:
He [the artist] did not have insurance for the piece.
Quote:
“The city has a responsibility to file a claim with our insurance company, and we do that any time city property is damaged,” Reilly said Thursday. “It will be up to the insurance companies to get this worked out.”
  #7  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:18 PM
Joey P Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 27,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoeless View Post
I'd would not be at all surprised if the family winds up filing a personal injury lawsuit. They don't seem like the kind of people to take any responsibility for what happened.
It sounds to me like they're just in shock. I'm willing to bet they feel awful about it, but just assumed the city's insurance would take care of it and were surprised to get a bill that may effectively ruin them. The rest of the comments she made, I'm guessing, are just grabbing at straws hoping someone will back down.

As far as the bill she got, my WAG is that either her insurance company will cover it (then drop her) or if she gets a lawyer they can probably settle for a more reasonable amount. Say, $10,000 to be paid over few years, especially if the artist can repair it.
I don't know much about bankruptcy, but I'd imagine if they don't have any big assets (house, expensive car etc), the insurance company may know that if they attempt to force her to pay this huge bill, she could declare bankruptcy and they'll get little to nothing.
  #8  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:39 PM
StGermain StGermain is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Toon Town
Posts: 10,574
I can really see fault all the way around.

The kid was NOT supervised, no matter what the parent said.

The statue was a hazard if it wasn't secured down. If the kid had been killed our sympathies would probably be elsewhere.

The artist is the one valuing the work at $132K. Is his other work commanding such prices? It was in an exhibit and for sale. I wouldn't think that Community Center art shows would attract high-priced talent.

StG
  #9  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:44 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is online now
Friend of Cecil
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoeless View Post
The artist didn't have it insured. It's the city's insurance company that's billing the parents.
Even if the artist had it insured, the parents would still get a bill from that insurance company.

Last edited by Fear Itself; 06-15-2018 at 10:45 PM.
  #10  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:52 PM
Lamoral Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 1,777
If you're going to call a place "Tomahawk Ridge Community Center" you need to have less fragile art installations. You need to have big-ass wood carvings and sculptures with lots of leather and steel and shit. There's no place for flimsy, froofy glass frippery and other such trifling nonsense at a place whose name contains the word "Tomahawk." The child should be forced to rip the heart out of a buffalo with his bare hands.
__________________
Meet me at Jacquernagy Park.
  #11  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:18 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 43,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by StGermain View Post
I can really see fault all the way around.

The kid was NOT supervised, no matter what the parent said.

The statue was a hazard if it wasn't secured down. If the kid had been killed our sympathies would probably be elsewhere.

The artist is the one valuing the work at $132K. Is his other work commanding such prices? It was in an exhibit and for sale. I wouldn't think that Community Center art shows would attract high-priced talent.

StG
It sounds like it was secured, just not structurally sound enough for a kid to climb on/pull on. The article said the statue was in a closed area, obviously not closed enough.
Maybe the center should have put glass around it, but that would take away from the art and might be more expensive than they could afford.
The artist said he worked on it for several years, so he might be right about its value, but that is what assessors are for. I'm sure the parents won't pay the full amount, but they should pay something. Letting a kid out of sight in a place like that - with artwork - is not supervising them. Teach them a good lesson.
When my kids were 5 they sure as hell diidn't run around unsupervised.
  #12  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:49 PM
Tastes of Chocolate Tastes of Chocolate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: slightly north of center
Posts: 4,610
Assuming the clips of video in the OP's link are in order, then those kids make multiple passes past the statue, including what looks like being told by their father not to climb on/touch that exact statue. I'm totally in the camp of "What the heck were the parents thinking?"
  #13  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:56 PM
zweisamkeit zweisamkeit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: detroit, east-side
Posts: 4,433
I agree that it sounds like everyone in this story shares a bit of the blame, but this just cracked me up:

Quote:
“He probably hugged it,” Goodman said of her son. “Maybe my son hugged a torso because he’s a loving, sweet nice boy who just graduated from preschool.”
  #14  
Old 06-16-2018, 12:39 AM
Merneith Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,599
You can see a close-up image of the piece here -

https://imgur.com/7dVQu0T

It's like a stained glass sculpture, with lots of little pieces of glass held by a frame. The boy's lucky he wasn't hurt.

I'm not sure that the stand in that image is the same as the one at the community center. Maybe it is. I'm sure all the art pieces at the community are secured to some extent, but "secured" doesn't mean, "safe for young primates to climb on".

The parents are completely at fault here. They aren't even visible in the camera shot. It was no one else's responsibility to watch the kids or childproof their building. It was their job to prevent their kids from treating the stationary objects like jungle gyms.

It's an expensive lesson, but it's one they needed to learn.
  #15  
Old 06-16-2018, 12:24 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 77,319
The parents should pay. They are responsible for the damage their child caused and therefore should have known better than to let him run around loose in a place with open art exhibits.

They'd have my sympathies if their child had done something that got himself killed but they would have been responsible for that as well.
  #16  
Old 06-16-2018, 12:46 PM
kanicbird kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 18,799
Looking at the video, clearly the museums fault and they are lucky that the kid did not get harmed by their negligence, multiple kids are on that statue before this one goes there and basically does the same thing all other kids are doing.

I feel the opposite, the museum should be closed for safety reasons, not reopend till the staff is trained to either safeguard the works or secure them, and sued as they obviously have a pattern of letting children touch/hug this sculpture but had it so unsecured that it could be tipped over by a child. Having one parent in the mix telling their child not to do it (assumed) does not change the rest of the video, actually reinforces taht the museum is not doing that, and when one kid sees it others want to follow (this goes for adults also).

I find it distressful that kids were such exposed to this and am quite angry with the museum that they would allow this to happen.
  #17  
Old 06-16-2018, 01:10 PM
Ignotus Ignotus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,195
Am I the only one who gets the impression that the kid was mostly interested in... ahem... certain parts of the female anatomy of that sculpture?
  #18  
Old 06-16-2018, 01:18 PM
Loach Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,067
Put a lien on the kid’s future earnings.
  #19  
Old 06-16-2018, 01:19 PM
asahi asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,046
Sometimes parents just have to pay for the damage that their kids cause. If a kid starts playing with matches and burns down a duplex, the parents are probably going to get sued by the landlord and neighboring tenants. I don't see how this is different.
  #20  
Old 06-16-2018, 01:32 PM
msmith537 msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 26,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoeless View Post
I'd would not be at all surprised if the family winds up filing a personal injury lawsuit. They don't seem like the kind of people to take any responsibility for what happened.
And they would be well justified in doing so. Perhaps you are familiar with the legal concept of an "attractive nuisance"? Usually it applies to swimming pools and trampolines and other yard equipment, but it can really apply to any dangerous object that is likely to attract children who are unable to appreciate the risks associated with that object. The museum has a certain obligation to display exhibits in such a way that a child cannot knock them down and potentially injure themselves or others.


In the meantime, I will post a couple of pictures of some various objects where if it wasn't for my athleticism and split-second reflexes, my child would have damaged:
Lime Green Icicle Tower by Dale Chihuly
Prehistoric Elk at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh

Last edited by msmith537; 06-16-2018 at 01:33 PM.
  #21  
Old 06-16-2018, 01:50 PM
Corry El Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanicbird View Post
Looking at the video, clearly the museums fault and they are lucky that the kid did not get harmed by their negligence, multiple kids are on that statue before this one goes there and basically does the same thing all other kids are doing.

I feel the opposite, the museum should be closed for safety reasons, not reopend till the staff is trained to either safeguard the works or secure them, and sued as they obviously have a pattern of letting children touch/hug this sculpture but had it so unsecured that it could be tipped over by a child. Having one parent in the mix telling their child not to do it (assumed) does not change the rest of the video, actually reinforces taht the museum is not doing that, and when one kid sees it others want to follow (this goes for adults also).

I find it distressful that kids were such exposed to this and am quite angry with the museum that they would allow this to happen.
I agree showing other kids touching it (maybe there's lots of footage of that) and no action by the museum to stop it suggests an 'attractive nuisance' issue. [eta sorry to be repetitive on that, simultaneous posts]

Parents aren't blameless either if their kids run around the neighborhood, fall into somebody's *too easy to access* pool and drown. But the pool owner or their insurance is going to pay out in that a case like that generally if it is judged too easy to access. Saying the 'parents should have supervised' does not confer blanket immunity from liability involving curious kids getting hurt by stuff. So it logically would not either in case of trying to claim compensation from the parents where the kid happened not to get hurt (no way would anyone with PR sense at the ins co try to make the parents pay if the kid had been seriously hurt, as seems could easily have happened, which wouldn't really change who was at fault).

You've come closest it seems to implying it's all or almost all the museum/municipality's fault. I'm mainly with the posts saying there's fault to go around. But just as a practical matter if I were the parents I'd get a lawyer and explore a countersuit. Not that I'd think I wasn't at fault, but everyone has a right to defend their finances. And these people have some case I think that their fault shouldn't be measured at absolute full (and probably then some) list price of the sculpture.

Last edited by Corry El; 06-16-2018 at 01:52 PM.
  #22  
Old 06-16-2018, 02:26 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 33,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignotus View Post
Am I the only one who gets the impression that the kid was mostly interested in... ahem... certain parts of the female anatomy of that sculpture?
Yes, he kept grabbing the breasts. A very affectionate boy indeed.
  #23  
Old 06-16-2018, 02:40 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 23,643
I don’t think an attractive nuisance is “everyone has to lock up everything that children may want to touch,” because that’s literally everything on earth. Libraries would not be allowed to have shelves, for example, because kids loooove climbing shelves.

Sure, people have a responsibility to secure swimming pools and so forth that kids who are wandering around a neighborhood may be attracted to, and tragedy may result.

But this was not a case of having a statute in an area where kids who you’d expect to unsupervised could wander into. If you’re in a community center, it’s reasonable to believe that kids are there for a reason, and the duty to supervise children to prevent unfortunate accidents (IMHO) comes along with that.

Seems like the statute was displayed in a way you’d expect most statutes in a facility like that to be displayed. I can’t reach the conclusion that the facility was negligent by displaying art in the way that pretty much everyone expects.
  #24  
Old 06-16-2018, 03:42 PM
Urbanredneck Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacquernagy View Post
If you're going to call a place "Tomahawk Ridge Community Center" you need to have less fragile art installations. You need to have big-ass wood carvings and sculptures with lots of leather and steel and shit. There's no place for flimsy, froofy glass frippery and other such trifling nonsense at a place whose name contains the word "Tomahawk." The child should be forced to rip the heart out of a buffalo with his bare hands.
That was very rude of you.

Tomahawk Community Center is close by. It is named that because that was the name of the former school which was taken over to become a community center.

I live in Overland Park and this is the first I have heard of this. I will see what I can find out?
  #25  
Old 06-16-2018, 03:46 PM
sitchensis sitchensis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: revillagigedo
Posts: 2,549
If the kid worked there he'd have an L&I claim and the workplace would be at fault.
  #26  
Old 06-16-2018, 03:58 PM
aceplace57 aceplace57 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CentralArkansas
Posts: 23,786
Statues in parks get climbed on. They are properly secured because there are idiots out there.

The community center should have realized kids would be grabbing at this thing.

They are at fault here.

Last edited by aceplace57; 06-16-2018 at 03:59 PM.
  #27  
Old 06-16-2018, 04:22 PM
Xema Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,783
If I'm associated with an insurance company and a city comes to me saying "Hey, we'd like a policy so that when a 5-year-old kid visits a place where kids are welcome and for a couple of minutes gets slightly out of control, you pony up $132k for the damages" my response would be to quote a very stiff annual premium.
  #28  
Old 06-16-2018, 04:41 PM
aceplace57 aceplace57 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CentralArkansas
Posts: 23,786
I have to question the value of that piece.

Local artists can churn out something like that pretty fast. That design goes back to the Greeks and been copied forever.

I might accept 25k for a custom piece.

But, a 132k item in a community center and totally unprotected? Who does that?

Last edited by aceplace57; 06-16-2018 at 04:42 PM.
  #29  
Old 06-16-2018, 04:54 PM
Joey P Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 27,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
I have to question the value of that piece.

Local artists can churn out something like that pretty fast. That design goes back to the Greeks and been copied forever.

I might accept 25k for a custom piece.

But, a 132k item in a community center and totally unprotected? Who does that?
The 'value' is just what the artist is asking for it. I'm sure the insurance people will have it appraised and take into consideration any current offers on it as well as what the artist's other pieces have sold for. I mean, I can 'value' my car for $130,000 but when it gets smashed up, the insurance company is probably only going to give me 10k for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
If I'm associated with an insurance company and a city comes to me saying "Hey, we'd like a policy so that when a 5-year-old kid visits a place where kids are welcome and for a couple of minutes gets slightly out of control, you pony up $132k for the damages" my response would be to quote a very stiff annual premium.
I thought the actuarial tables/underwriters figure all that out. I don't know that there's a whole lot of discretion on the part of the agent/broker to adjust premiums.

I assume the policy spells out very clearly what is and isn't covered. Since they're attempting to collect from the family, they likely paid out on the claim.
  #30  
Old 06-16-2018, 06:34 PM
Aspidistra Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,743
That's an "unsupervised" child?

Pull the other one. The family's in the room down the corridor (you can see in the video, about 30s, as they're coming in, they enter past the statue, the kid wants to climb on the plinth, and his dad tells him no)

Then at about 43s the video cuts to the end when, as the mother says in the article, they're getting ready to leave and the two kids get out in front of the parents on the way back out. Which is completely normal kids-leaving-places-with-their-family behaviour - if I saw a couple of parents say to their young schoolkids "yes, we're just gathering our stuff, you can go wait by the car, we'll be out in five" I wouldn't bat an eyelid in a well-trafficked open area like that.

It's literally 20 seconds between when the kid leaves the room and disaster. If the standard of 'supervised' is 'must have continuous eye contact on all your children whenever you leave the house' then this is a standard that has been achieved by no parents in the history of ever.

"Don't leave artwork so poorly secured that a five year old can knock it down in less than five seconds" seems like a much more achievable standard to hold someone to.
__________________
I don't think I'm being unreasonable if I suggest that the number of inferences required to extrapolate the cause of Chinese population growth from your hairdresser's experience puts a burden on fundamental logic fair greater than it can reasonably bear. - RNATB
  #31  
Old 06-16-2018, 06:42 PM
UCBearcats UCBearcats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 398
People who can't supervise their children shouldn't have them.
  #32  
Old 06-16-2018, 06:55 PM
jtur88 jtur88 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Cebu, Philippines
Posts: 14,329
In my view,, I don't think there is a strong case for payment. The owner of the artwork has been compensated, and it is the insurance company that has accepted the risk. This is exactly the risk exposure that the insurer undertakes to indemnify, and the family is under no obligation to pay the bill.

I would assume that insurers routinely try to recover their payouts like this, but I doubt if they have much success. Insurers collect generous premiums against accidental losses, and then find it easy to argue that there is no such thing as an accident, human fault can always be found.
  #33  
Old 06-16-2018, 07:00 PM
Two Many Cats Two Many Cats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,864
If we accept whatever the artist says it's worth, what's to stop the artist from gouging?

If the artist had said two million, that means it's worth two million, no questions asked?

Kids do need to learn that the world is not their playground though.
  #34  
Old 06-16-2018, 07:10 PM
jtur88 jtur88 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Cebu, Philippines
Posts: 14,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Two Many Cats View Post
If we accept whatever the artist says it's worth, what's to stop the artist from gouging?

If the artist had said two million, that means it's worth two million, no questions asked?

Kids do need to learn that the world is not their playground though.
I assume the insurers of art works and the like have knowledgeable investigators who can determine value, based normally on the last price the work sold for, or a realistic asking price for an item offered for sale, or an appraisal from an auction house. Probably also, in advance of the insurance agreement, an itemized list of the inventory and a declared value of each piece.

Kids DO learn that, but are still a part of the natural environment before they do. If a small child can tip over a display, it was not displayed securely enough, and that is the fault of neither the child nor the parents.

Last edited by jtur88; 06-16-2018 at 07:12 PM.
  #35  
Old 06-16-2018, 07:15 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 35,671
I opened this thread all ready to pile onto the parents who let their kids run wild in an art gallery and harm valuable works.

Instead, I find this bullshit. A fragile sculpture in a public room in a community center, with minimal protection, yet supposedly valued at $132K, but nobody bothered to protect it as if it were particularly valuable. And this wasn't a damn china shop, where a parent would be on notice that s/he would have to keep an eagle eye on the kid every second, or better yet, keep the kid out of there altogether. (I don't know about your community center, but in ours, kids run about a good bit.)

So I'm on the parents' side here. A community center is the sort of place where you shouldn't need to keep an eye on your kid every damn second, and it clearly didn't take more than a few seconds for a preschooler to break the statue. AFAIAC, it's between the artist, the community center, and the center's insurance company. The parents should have every right to tell them to piss up a rope.
  #36  
Old 06-16-2018, 07:23 PM
Tzigone Tzigone is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,077
I'm a lot less generous to the parents than a lot of people. If your kids breaks something that belongs to someone else, that is a problem, and you should at least be apologetic about and attempt to compensate the other party (at or lease feel bad about not being able to do so). And the bullshit "he was probably trying to hug it because he's sweet" really irritated me, because he was doing no such thing. He was a kid climbing and playing on something he shouldn't have been. Normal behavior for a kid, not abominable, but not the crap mom was saying, either.
  #37  
Old 06-16-2018, 07:25 PM
Urbanredneck Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I opened this thread all ready to pile onto the parents who let their kids run wild in an art gallery and harm valuable works.

Instead, I find this bullshit. A fragile sculpture in a public room in a community center, with minimal protection, yet supposedly valued at $132K, but nobody bothered to protect it as if it were particularly valuable. And this wasn't a damn china shop, where a parent would be on notice that s/he would have to keep an eagle eye on the kid every second, or better yet, keep the kid out of there altogether. (I don't know about your community center, but in ours, kids run about a good bit.)

So I'm on the parents' side here. A community center is the sort of place where you shouldn't need to keep an eye on your kid every damn second, and it clearly didn't take more than a few seconds for a preschooler to break the statue. AFAIAC, it's between the artist, the community center, and the center's insurance company. The parents should have every right to tell them to piss up a rope.
I have looked into this more.

First, Tomahawk Ridge is a COMMUNITY CENTER. Right next to a public pool and features a gym, childcare area, and fitness center. It is used for all kinds of community events like day camps for kids and birthday parties.

It is NOT, NOT a art museum!

Basically someone donated this piece to the community center to be placed in a room that features artwork but has no real security. A kid got away from his parents and ran up and broke it. From what I can tell it was basically just a foyer.

You know what? Someone could have easily just walked in and stole it! Hey its worth $132,000 isnt it?

So I think the insurance company is out of luck on this one.
  #38  
Old 06-16-2018, 07:46 PM
filmore filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,753
The parents should sue the community center saying their child has been traumatized because the statue fell on him. Because he's so young, this trauma will certainly greatly affect his entire lifetime earning potential. It's probably the same insurance company who has the liability policy, so it should streamline things. Once the parents win their multi-million dollar settlement, they'll can just tell the insurance company to deduct the $132k and send them the rest.
  #39  
Old 06-16-2018, 08:17 PM
Merneith Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
If a small child can tip over a display, it was not displayed securely enough, and that is the fault of neither the child nor the parents.
If the kid had just bumped into the display, you might have a point. But this kid tried to climb the exhibit. It's unreasonable to expect that every object in a community center would be stabilized for use as a jungle gym.

The dad should have reamed the kid out the first time he caught him monkeying with the sculpture. Instead, the parents moseyed on down and let the kids out of their line of sight. If you can't see your kids - then they aren't being supervised.

I'm glad the child wasn't hurt but - he broke it. His parents now get to buy it.
  #40  
Old 06-16-2018, 08:29 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is online now
Friend of Cecil
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
In my view,, I don't think there is a strong case for payment. The owner of the artwork has been compensated, and it is the insurance company that has accepted the risk. This is exactly the risk exposure that the insurer undertakes to indemnify, and the family is under no obligation to pay the bill.

I would assume that insurers routinely try to recover their payouts like this, but I doubt if they have much success. Insurers collect generous premiums against accidental losses, and then find it easy to argue that there is no such thing as an accident, human fault can always be found.
Insurance companies prevail in subrogation suits every day. There are attorneys that do nothing but subrogation lawsuits. Here is one:

https://www.propertycasualty360.com/...20180516212513
  #41  
Old 06-16-2018, 08:39 PM
Corry El Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I don’t think an attractive nuisance is “everyone has to lock up everything that children may want to touch,” because that’s literally everything on earth. Libraries would not be allowed to have shelves, for example, because kids loooove climbing shelves.

Sure, people have a responsibility to secure swimming pools and so forth that kids who are wandering around a neighborhood may be attracted to, and tragedy may result.

But this was not a case of having a statute in an area where kids who you’d expect to unsupervised could wander into. If you’re in a community center, it’s reasonable to believe that kids are there for a reason, and the duty to supervise children to prevent unfortunate accidents (IMHO) comes along with that.

Seems like the statute was displayed in a way you’d expect most statutes in a facility like that to be displayed. I can’t reach the conclusion that the facility was negligent by displaying art in the way that pretty much everyone expects.
This isn't a question of absolutes, properly thought of, so extreme examples aren't convincing. People and particularly kids are supposed to be specially taught to be quiet and orderly in libraries, or museums which it seems more than one poster thought this must have been.

I would say a community center is actually pretty far over on the scale of where you'd expect kids to run around a little compared to a library or museum.

But it is a judgment call. The point about attractive nuisance is just that some people, maybe kidless or very superior feeling parents I'm not sure, seem to offer 'the parents should have supervised' as the answer to everything. But while parents in general should supervise, like Aspidistra said there's a question of practical standards given that kids are kids. And every kid under the continuous vision of their parents at all times in public is less practical than don't put expensive art pieces unprotected in places with a relatively low expectation of specially quiet and well mannered behavior by kids like a community center, as contrasted to say a library or museum.

Last edited by Corry El; 06-16-2018 at 08:41 PM.
  #42  
Old 06-16-2018, 09:01 PM
Lamoral Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 1,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I opened this thread all ready to pile onto the parents who let their kids run wild in an art gallery and harm valuable works.

Instead, I find this bullshit. A fragile sculpture in a public room in a community center, with minimal protection, yet supposedly valued at $132K, but nobody bothered to protect it as if it were particularly valuable. And this wasn't a damn china shop, where a parent would be on notice that s/he would have to keep an eagle eye on the kid every second, or better yet, keep the kid out of there altogether. (I don't know about your community center, but in ours, kids run about a good bit.)
Yeah, I'm with ya. This is a load of shit. The proprietors of the center/the artist are the one who come off sounding like rubes here.
  #43  
Old 06-16-2018, 10:21 PM
DSeid DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 20,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Insurance companies prevail in subrogation suits every day. There are attorneys that do nothing but subrogation lawsuits. Here is one:

https://www.propertycasualty360.com/...20180516212513
Well often they are in subrogation suits with lawyers representing another insurance company ... amazingly one often wins more than the other ... and often there is some share of blame allocated to each side.


In the tape it is clear that the sculpture is in an area which has many preschool aged children traveling past it and other children are seen climbing up to touch the sculpture.

Appropriate supervision of a preschooler in a trafficked area of a community center is not the arm's length supervision of being in the pool. Visual contact is reasonable but being within visual contact would not have preventing this level of contact with the artwork.

It is clear that the boy did not in fact climb up on the sculpture but hugged from a level below half way up the actual bust.

It does not in that video appear that the bust was secured to the base in any way.

I've been to lots of art museums and no serious museum would have a fragile piece that was as easy to topple over as this one seemed to be.

95% negligence to the city. 4% to whoever loaned it to the city for not instructing them on how to safely display it. 1% maybe to the family. And that is for the cost of repairing the work, not for its replacement.

Yes they are very lucky the child was not hurt.
  #44  
Old 06-17-2018, 02:31 AM
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 34,205
If there are other kids climbing on it, it is reasonable for the kid to think they could do so, too. I expect things that are dangerous to have signs or people around preventing climbing. Assuming the podium is separate, I would think it would be designed to prevent any sort of "climbing." And, yes, there are better ways to secure things.

And saying that a 6 figure bill is just "an expensive lesson" seems rather privileged to me. I would actually guess that it would be hard for them to recover that much from most people, since they can't make you homeless, or garnish wages over a certain amount.
  #45  
Old 06-17-2018, 03:48 AM
chappachula chappachula is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,421
I'm with the folks who emphasize that this is a community center, not an art gallery. It's a place where children are expected to be running around. (Although , yes, with supervision.)
I don't know if the sculpture meets the legal definition of "attractive nuisance" (like, say, an unfenced swimming pool).
But I do think there should be a greater expectation that the community center management would realize that with all those kids running around-- "this is why we can't have nice things".

Here's my test case for the court to consider : ask "Would an art gallery place that sculpture in its lobby? Answer is Yes.
Now ask "would an elementary school place that sculpture in its lobby?" I'm pretty sure the answer is "no".

A community center is more like an elementary school than an art gallery.

Last edited by chappachula; 06-17-2018 at 03:50 AM.
  #46  
Old 06-17-2018, 09:47 AM
Urbanredneck Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by chappachula View Post
I'm with the folks who emphasize that this is a community center, not an art gallery. It's a place where children are expected to be running around. (Although , yes, with supervision.)
I don't know if the sculpture meets the legal definition of "attractive nuisance" (like, say, an unfenced swimming pool).
But I do think there should be a greater expectation that the community center management would realize that with all those kids running around-- "this is why we can't have nice things".

Here's my test case for the court to consider : ask "Would an art gallery place that sculpture in its lobby? Answer is Yes.
Now ask "would an elementary school place that sculpture in its lobby?" I'm pretty sure the answer is "no".

A community center is more like an elementary school than an art gallery.
My bolding. Funny you should say that. Years ago that WAS an elementary school.
  #47  
Old 06-17-2018, 10:11 AM
Baker Baker is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Tottering-on-the-Brink
Posts: 19,211
Some years ago my sister and I built a special gingerbread model of a well-known local church. My boss had us place it on display in his cafe, where I work as the baker. The cafe is located in the public library. Lots of people and lots of kids.

The art gallery from the library loaned us a display podium, with a plexiglass shield all around, and a top to cover it. They said that signs that say "Please, don't tough" seem to some folks to mean, "Please touch" and that if there are protective sides folks will reach up and over the top to get at displayed art.

To have a valuble sculpture, with so little protection, was stupid, in Community center anyway.
  #48  
Old 06-17-2018, 10:44 AM
Aquadementia Aquadementia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,824
Hugged?
It looked more like the kid was feeling-up the statue. The little perv could be hit for molestation.
On the other hand, maybe the parents will sue because now he thinks if he touches a woman's boobs she will break into a million pieces (and won't stop trying to do it again).

Last edited by Aquadementia; 06-17-2018 at 10:45 AM.
  #49  
Old 06-17-2018, 10:56 AM
bucketybuck bucketybuck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 3,109
Like others I watched the video and I see a statue that didn't just have one kid touching when he shouldn't, but had a bunch of kids touching it and climbing on it. It was just a matter of time before something happened, the centre is lucky a child didn't get hurt there.

And like others I call bullshit on the unsupervised parts. Yes, watch your kids. No, that doesn't mean 24/7 eyes on target helicopter parenting.
  #50  
Old 06-17-2018, 05:34 PM
Merneith Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucketybuck View Post
No, that doesn't mean 24/7 eyes on target helicopter parenting.
Fine, but don't come crying to me when you get handed a bill for your kid's damages.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017