# 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:** 4
**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, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/61 "2018-06-18T16:26:37Z")
> [@Brayne\_Ded](#): > > 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. Parents would be liable under the Negligent Supervision tort. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/62 "2018-06-18T17:41:38Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > If the standard of ‘supervised’ is ‘must have continuous eye contact on all your children whenever you leave the house’ I should think it should be. One of the reasons I don’t have any. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/63 "2018-06-18T17:55:34Z")
After viewing the video I don’t have new opinions to add but would sum up as: [ul] [li]It’s a community center where there should be expected to be families with young children. It was very unwise to place a piece of art valued at $132K where children could get anywhere near it.[/li][li]The parents were not supervising the child at the moment this occurred, but I would question whether it is reasonable to expect them to provide supervision in a community center at every moment. If it were a museum I might think differently.[/li][li]However, this was the kid’s second try and Dad saw the first try so that should have put him on alert.[/li][li]I expected to see a pile of shattered rubble but all I saw was the piece toppled over. Whatever the value is, the piece’s value was not reduced to $0 by this accident. I’m not sure it was reduced at all. I’m not sure it has any value at all in the first place.[/li][li]The insurance company is probably posturing for the record. They have a fiduciary duty to try to recover the damages. Sending an invoice is just a first step, and it might be the last. If the parents ignore the invoice they would have to sue them to recover. It remains to be seen to what lengths the insurance company will go to.[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/64 "2018-06-18T18:24:08Z")
I fully agree the parents should be made to foot the bill, but I think this needs a Norwegian income-adjusted penalty. $132,000 is too steep, if this is an average family. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/65 "2018-06-18T18:25:50Z")
_Norwegian_ as in, the way Norway assesses traffic tickets on the basis of the driver’s income. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/66 "2018-06-18T18:40:01Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I fully agree the parents should be made to foot the bill, but I think this needs a Norwegian income-adjusted penalty. $132,000 is too steep, if this is an average family. Would the insurance company not be able to dispute the value because it was specifically insured for $132,000? They can argue about the value of a totaled car. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2018, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/67 "2018-06-18T19:01:08Z")
I think it’s incorrect to focus on the parents’ duty to supervise their kids. Yes, they have that duty, but the reality is that even extremely attentive parents are not going to literally have eyes on their kids all the time, and even relatively well-behaved five-year olds are going to get up to mischief. So we need to design things so that those totally human and expected behaviors don’t result in major damage. We have places where we expect children to play and basically secure those places effectively so that it’s very difficult for them to casually do massive amounts of damage. Obviously, there’s a continuum of responsibility, and it depends on whether it is reasonable to expect that you can take your eyes off your kids for a few moments. If someone had left a Van Gough on a playground, it would be totally unreasonable to expect parents to pay for damages. On the other hand, if a parent brought a child into an art museum and distracted the guard while they went up and poked holes in a masterpiece, that’s a different thing. So the important question is whether the lobby of a community center is more like a playground than an art museum. It seems to me that it’s a lot closer to a playground than an art museum, and should be designed as such. Which means that artwork should be relatively inexpensive and out of reach. Failure to do so is mostly on the person who decided to put expensive fragile artwork in a space that’s frequented by small children. If you read the comments by the city, it appears that they’ve made this error intentionally. They think that having expensive artwork lying around is a draw to the community center. Instead of, you know, the community-driven events that take place there. I’m also deeply suspicious of the $132k price tag, but it’s mostly irrelevant to my argument. Even if we assume that the price is legitimate, the primary error is putting something fragile and expensive in the lobby of a community center. And while it is reasonable to expect the parents to pay something for damage caused by their child, it’s woefully unjust to scale that penalty _by the magnitude of the error made by whoever decided to put the art there_. ---
**Author:** ![MarvinKitFox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ba0ec/32.png) [@MarvinKitFox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarvinKitFox)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/68 "2018-06-19T07:37:57Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > 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. Yep. The statue was located in a public-access area. If touching it could damage the artwork, it should have had a simple stanchion-and-rope barrier around it. And a small but visible sign saying “do not touch”. If it could be dangerous to the public, it should have had a physical barrier preventing contact. But no, what we had here was a very expensive, _glass_ statue, on a pedestal in a public area, which public area caters to all ages. Kids are _expected_ to be there. That that chunk of glass was accessible to public, and so poorly anchored that a 5-year-old could pull it down, and not roped off or in a protective case or in an access-restricted room, shows that it was a public safety hazard. Parents should sue for millions for endangering their child. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/69 "2018-06-19T07:56:50Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I fully agree the parents should be made to foot the bill, but I think this needs a Norwegian income-adjusted penalty. $132,000 is too steep, if this is an average family. Even if they’re found responsible enough that they have to pay, I doubt it would be $132k. They’re probably not 100% responsible and I’m skeptical of the $132,000 figure. Like, hypothetically, they could be found 60% responsible for a drop in value from $20,000 to $5,000, in which case they’d owe $9,000. > [@carnivorousplant](#): > > Would the insurance company not be able to dispute the value because it was specifically insured for $132,000? They can argue about the value of a totaled car. Even if the insurance company was somehow bound to pay $132,000 regardless of the actual value, that wouldn’t also fall on some random passer-by. Like, if an insurance company agrees to pay me a million dollars for a five dollar Walmart vase that someone broke, the guy who broke it owes them five dollars, not a million. ---
**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 19, 2018, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/70 "2018-06-19T08:06:41Z")
> [@Inigo\_Montoya](#): > > Parents would be liable under the Negligent Supervision tort. And the definition and proof of negligent supervision would fuel many a long-winded legal argument in court. BTW, from what age does the Negligent Supervision tort apply? ---
**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 19, 2018, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/71 "2018-06-19T08:11:08Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > _Norwegian_ as in, the way Norway assesses traffic tickets on the basis of the driver’s income. So does Finland. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/72 "2018-06-19T08:16:38Z")
This would be a great ‘Malice’ style con. Where the kid’s parents are in league with the artist to take down the insurance companies. ---
**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 19, 2018, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/73 "2018-06-19T08:16:44Z")
[quote=“CookingWithGas, post:63, topic:816187”] [li]The insurance company is probably posturing for the record. They have a fiduciary duty to try to recover the damages. Sending an invoice is just a first step, and it might be the last. If the parents ignore the invoice they would have to sue them to recover. It remains to be seen to what lengths the insurance company will go to.[/LIST][/li][/QUOTE] That is how I see it, too. I’ll bet that the insurance company would not welcome an appearance in court, where they would appear as if they are hounding an average (and not wealthy) family for a totally disproportionate amount for damage done by a small kid to an item that had not been secured properly in a place where you could expect kids to be. I hope someone advises the parents of this and they refuse to pay the invoice. For that matter, any invoice. Artworks have no intrinsic value as such, they were merely worth what people are prepared to pay for them, which assumes that they think that they are of artistic value. The parents - or their lawyers - could argue that the thing was an artistic monstrosity and worth no more than the cost of the glass. ---
**Author:** ![kambuckta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/53a042/32.png) [@kambuckta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kambuckta)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/74 "2018-06-19T09:10:22Z")
> [@Brayne\_Ded](#): > > That is how I see it, too. I’ll bet that the insurance company would not welcome an appearance in court, where they would appear as if they are hounding an average (and not wealthy) family for a totally disproportionate amount for damage done by a small kid to an item that had not been secured properly in a place where you could expect kids to be. I hope someone advises the parents of this and they refuse to pay the invoice. For that matter, any invoice. > > Artworks have no intrinsic value as such, they were merely worth what people are prepared to pay for them, which assumes that they think that they are of artistic value. The parents - or their lawyers - could argue that the thing was an artistic monstrosity and worth no more than the cost of the glass. ^^ This ---
**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 19, 2018, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/75 "2018-06-19T09:21:14Z")
Even if they have a duty to try and get the parents involved, I think sending a full-on invoice that demands they pay such a large sum is a bad idea, if only for PR reasons. It’s the type of thing that can, well, make the news. Surely they can think of another way to contact people that doesn’t imply they will have to pay the full amount. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/76 "2018-06-19T10:35:33Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > 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. > [@Joey\_P](#): > > 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. The agent/broker is supposed to have access to a table that contains “value of objects insured” and, if the value desired is in excess of what the table reaches, an actuary to indicate either which premium to charge or what’s the insurable maximum. In any case, the premiums are supposed to be calculated so they do cover and surpass what ends up being paid. ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/77 "2018-06-19T11:20:04Z")
Insurance company chose to sue the parents; the parents can choose to sue the center. You might be behind a 1 million dollar automobile, and you might rear end it, which would run 5-10k in damages on most cars, but completely total the car, which has a carbon-fiber tub and rear-mounted engine. It’s unrepairable. You might not have enough coverage to cover the damage. You might have a 500,000 gap, which is on you. You know there is a risk and you ignore this risk to drive. We can all be sued for something which seems far to easy to crush us. Like a simple, ‘running late’ text as one drives. Like a kid grabbing a statue. These acts, simple by nature, confound us. I cannot fathom walking into a place like that and letting my kids run loose. Sorry. What you’re seeing is the result of stupidity. If you do something negligent, you might break someone’s 250 dollar lawn ornament, but you might kill someone with the same action. Nonetheless… the simplicity and ease of the accident occurring does not simply remove your responsibility. Was the center at fault? Probably not. Were they stupid? Yes. It’d be nice if they were making the effort to protect you from the risk you ignored, which would also save them aggravation. But… they didn’t have to. . ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/78 "2018-06-19T13:16:35Z")
> [@Philster](#): > > Insurance company chose to sue the parents; the parents can choose to sue the center… And this is likely to be the solution. The parents attorney will file a countersuit for endangerment and harm and suffering against the center and the artist, arguing that the sculpture was not adequately secured or roped off and provided an attractive nuisance. Everything will be dropped under the “we all bear responsibility for this” ability for everyone in our legal system to sue everyone else. ---
**Author:** ![erysichthon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@erysichthon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erysichthon)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/79 "2018-06-19T15:03:02Z")
> [@Philster](#): > > Insurance company chose to sue the parents; the parents can choose to sue the center. That is incorrect. The insurance carrier didn’t sue the parents; they simply sent them a letter asking for $132,000. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187/80 "2018-06-19T15:21:11Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > And this is likely to be the solution. The parents attorney will file a countersuit for endangerment and harm and suffering against the center and the artist, arguing that the sculpture was not adequately secured or roped off and provided an attractive nuisance. Everything will be dropped under the “we all bear responsibility for this” ability for everyone in our legal system to sue everyone else. And the only winners are the lawyers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/child-damages-artwork-parents-get-bill-for-132k/816187.md?page=5)