# Child damages artwork, parents get bill for $132K **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [June 16, 2018, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187 "2018-06-16T02:24:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2018, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/41 "2018-06-17T01:39:29Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2018, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/42 "2018-06-17T02:01:44Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > 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](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYoxNh4D1J8), 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. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2018, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/43 "2018-06-17T03:21:32Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Insurance companies prevail in subrogation suits every day. There are attorneys that do nothing but subrogation lawsuits. Here is one: > > [Confessions of an Insurance Subrogation Attorney](https://www.propertycasualty360.com/2013/11/22/confessions-of-an-insurance-subrogation-attorney/?slreturn=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. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2018, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/44 "2018-06-17T07:31:59Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2018, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/45 "2018-06-17T08:48:53Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2018, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/46 "2018-06-17T14:47:17Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2018, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/47 "2018-06-17T15:11:15Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Aquadementia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aquadementia/32/555_2.png) [@Aquadementia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aquadementia)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2018, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/48 "2018-06-17T15:44:06Z")
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). ---
**Author:** ![bucketybuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@bucketybuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bucketybuck)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2018, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/49 "2018-06-17T15:56:55Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2018, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/50 "2018-06-17T22:34:17Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2018, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/51 "2018-06-17T22:35:18Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > 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. Watch the video in the OP. You can see the boy step up onto the display at :30. Then his dad calls him away. Then there’s a jump cut in the video. At :45 on the tape, the kid comes back and steps onto the display again. He puts his arms around the figure and you can see him looking down for a place to put his foot so he can step up. He’s not hugging the figure (or copping a feel :rolleyes: ). He’s got his arms around the figure so he can pull himself up. That’s when the sculpture gives way - while he’s got his weight on it. > [@DSeid](#): > > It does not in that video appear that the bust was secured to the base in any way. This is incorrect. The sculpture didn’t tip over the second he touched it. It was after he put his weight on it and tried to climb higher. > [@DSeid](#): > > 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. That doesn’t mean it would be good idea for you try and scale one. > [@DSeid](#): > > 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. It might not be reparable. Not every work of art is. It depends on how badly the armature was damaged, probably. And, for that matter, it might not be replaceable. It took years to make. They can’t just run down to Pottery Barn for a new one. ---
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2018, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/52 "2018-06-17T23:36:19Z")
Oh for fuck’s sake! They were fuckin’ stupid to put the thing in the common room of a community center for kids. I can literally buy a Ferrari Spider with under 10,000 miles for less than that gaudy sculpture is supposedly worth. This whole thing is preposterous. The kid’s parents don’t owe anyone shit. ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/53 "2018-06-18T00:03:01Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Fine, but don’t come crying to me when you get handed a bill for your kid’s damages. FWIW I’d be totally fine - and I bet many other people would be as well - with a _reasonable_ request for compensation if my child had damaged something valuable that the owners had taken appropriate care to secure. “Appropriate care” being at minimum some sort of barrier that takes a child more than five seconds to navigate, and “reasonable” being “of the sort of value you’d expect for a thouroughfare in a building where your business model caters to families with small children” If the kid was worrying at it for ten minutes and they get handed a bill for a couple of hundred then sure, pay up. ---
**Author:** ![erysichthon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@erysichthon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erysichthon)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/54 "2018-06-18T01:25:16Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > 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. Yeah, this is exactly how I feel about it. When I hear a phrase like “The kid was unsupervised!” or “The parents should have been watching him/her!” then I know that the speaker is someone who doesn’t have kids, hasn’t spent any time around kids, and doesn’t remember what it was like to be a kid. A fragile artwork that can be toppled by a small child shouldn’t be in a COMMUNITY CENTER, much less a museum. Whoever set up that exhibit is an idiot. Those parents should send that bill back to the insurance company with a photo of the kid giving them the finger. ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/55 "2018-06-18T02:29:07Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Basically someone donated this piece to the community center to be placed in a room that features artwork but has no real security. . So, if I understand this correctly, the $132K is what they claimed on their tax as the “value” of the donation? Then the city insures it for $132K and puts it out somewhere where they know it will be broken? First the insurance company says “Whatever, you pay the inflated premium, we pretend to insure”, then “You must be joking, let’s see what the courts reckon the real value is” I put the parents as innocent victims of this scam. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Bill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mr.Bill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Bill)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/56 "2018-06-18T04:32:13Z")
I have a few thoughts: First of all, the Community Center seems to me to be far and away the most at-fault party. They displayed a fragile piece of art in a heavily-travelled public space without, apparently, any thought to the securing of the piece. The behavior of the kids is pretty much typical of kids. It’s their job to explore the world and find out how things work. Unless you subscribe to the idea that kids should be locked in a rubber room until they come of age, you need to be aware that anywhere you have kids, there is the likelihood of accidents happening. It’s the adults’ job to kid-proof when necessary. And, even if you think the parents are at fault, where exactly are they supposed to get $132,00? Very few people have that kind of money available. Are you going to screw up the family’s financial position for the next couple of decades for a kids-being-kids accident? Throw the dad into debtor’s prison? In the article it is mentioned that “It will be up to the insurance companies to get this worked out.” What insurance are the parents supposed to have? Does your typical home-owners policy cover damage done by children when in public spaces? Color me ignorant, but I am skeptical. Or are they supposed to have special “damage my kids might do” insurance? In my mind, this is what the insurance company is paid for. If an earthquake had destroyed the artwork, would the insurance company try to bill Mother Nature for the damage? It is the insurance companies responsibility to assess the proper premium for anything which they insure. And, they could even have evaluated the installation and advised on proper protection to prevent damages. It would appear that they did not. I do feel bad for the artist, who supposedly lost a couple of years worth of work. (I have my doubts about this as well.) But, if he still owns the artwork, hopefully any payment the insurance company makes will be to him. ---
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/57 "2018-06-18T05:49:33Z")
> [@Mr.Bill](#): > > Are you going to screw up the family’s financial position for the next couple of decades for a kids-being-kids accident? Throw the dad into debtor’s prison? The answer is YES! The entire family should be sent to the Marshalsea, and maybe in a few decades’ time they will have earned sufficient funds - perhaps by picking oakum or boiling tallow - to at least partially reimburse this sculptor whom their brat has so grievously wronged. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/58 "2018-06-18T15:23:07Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Watch the video in the OP. … I did. I see a top heavy sculpture not attached to its base in _any_ way easily toppled over, narrowly missing landing on a child. Our reads of whether or not he was trying to climb or pull up onto it, or looking for a foothold, differ … _and do not matter_. (We can agree, I hope, that his arms around the bust were around the waist of it, not the upper half.) A preschooler (and a typical five year old boy weighs 40 pounds give or take) would not have been able to tip over that sculpture by even pulling at its base if there had been even any reasonable attempt to attach it to the base (which should be weighted). If you put a Faberge egg on a table next to playground, near the swing set, don’t come crying that some out of control unsupervised preschooler picked it up and accidentally dropped it. Parents should be watching their kids!!! There actually are guidelines for how to display art in public spaces. Pretty all of them include that the work must not present a safety risk. ---
**Author:** ![Inigo\_Montoya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inigo_montoya/32/124_2.png) [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/59 "2018-06-18T16:14:28Z")
> [@UCBearcats](#): > > People who can’t supervise their children shouldn’t have them. At LAST! A voice of reason in the internet jungle! Does your newsletter have lots of these little pearls? JK. Thanks for the laugh, this place gets a little heavy sometimes. ---
**Author:** ![Brayne\_Ded](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Brayne\_Ded](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brayne_Ded)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/60 "2018-06-18T16:22:36Z")
Maybe the USA is different, or lawyers need something to do, but in civilized countries you cannot legally touch kids under 14, and are limited in suing people under 18. The kid broke the thing, not the parents, so under most jurisdictions they are not liable to pay, if if said kid is an insufferable snotty little brat. What would the lawyers have done if the kid got hurt when the thing broke? Yup, all over the community center like a cheap suit. And, apart from the legal issues, the community center was seriously at fault for putting up a piece of glass in an area full of children, not necessarily closely supervised. If the artist thinks it is so valuable, treat it with the respect is deserves and put it in an art gallery. Oh, and did the community center have alarm systems guarding this valuable piece of (f)art? Last but not least, art never has any value apart from what people will pay for it. The artist is, well, a bullshit artist when it comes to pricing his or her work. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187.md?page=4)