Sounds like that should have been insured. And if they didn’t insure it, they should have, and should be on the hook.
I can’t find the standard for Kansas, specifically (that’s above my pay grade 
). I believe that detail would be left to the jury to decide whether this particular kid was prone to behave similarly to other kids his age, and whether it was reasonable for kids that age to be unsupervised in this situation. As you say, the lawyers could spend a couple days on it.
It was insured. And now the insurance company is trying to collect from the party they believe is responsible.
I’m pretty skeptical of “attractive nuisance” as a legal concept since I learned that the government is perfectly comfortable with placing live cyanide bombs in people’s communities and even on their property without telling them, and even defends the practice after pets, livestock, and even human adults and children have been doused with exploding poison.
In reading many news reports on this topic I’ve learned that government officials (both state and federal) have repeatedly lied when claiming they do not place these near human habitation – in the case of the boy and his dog in Idaho, the bomb was closer to his house than they claimed, and another one was later found IN HIS YARD.
Since these officials are comfortable leaving lethal chemical landmines all over the place, lying about it, and misrepresenting the program, I feel like the “attractive nuisance” doctrine should be laughed out of court.
It was at a community center, and given the number of events that can happen at community centers and many of those events may include children. So we have a community center that hosts events that could include children, and they didn’t even bother to put stanchions around it to keep people from touching the sculpture. All it takes for a kid to become unsupervised is a moments distraction, a parent dealing with another child and the other one is unsupervised, or a child going to the restroom by themselves is unsupervised, so it should be expected that at some point there would be unsupervised children in the center.
So I put most of the blame on the community center, and if this goes to court I’m sure their lawyer will point out that the community center knew there would be children there and they didn’t take basic precautions to protect the sculpture. Now they might not win, as they should be watching their children while in public, but the community center isn’t blameless.
That’s a little bit of a left turn for this thread. What you describe is not an attractive nuisance. An attractive nuisance poses a risk but also entices people to take that risk. There is nothing enticing about bombs and poison.
So what? It’s got a fairly broad, flat base. One wouldn’t expect an unsecured bust to tip over the second a tiny kid touches it. At about the 55 second mark, it’s moving and the base isn’t from some pressure from a tiny kid. What’s it secured with, rubber bands?
They’re baited to attract canines. That’s why they keep blowing up domestic dogs and the occasional accompanying child. They are specifically designed to attract and kill dogs (among other things, “feral dogs” are one of the official targets).
If something that incidentally attracts your family member to touch it is an attractive nuisance, something designed to attract my family member into range surely counts.
Yeah, that’s B.S. imo. I consider that akin to somebody damaging somebody’s car, the person makes a claim, and then having the car insurance company try to take it out on the poor driver. I’m sure it’s happened, but it’s really cheap.
Subrogation is not the exception, it is the rule. That’s why insurance rates are so low, because companies can recover payouts. If they couldn’t do that, rates would go through the roof.
Nah. Rubber bands would have worked. There was nothing.
The city’s insurance paid $107,000. Even with the $25,000 deductible, the city made $8,000 since it only had to give the artist $99,000. Evidently the city had falsely claimed, for whatever reason, that the family’s insurance paid, when in fact they told the city to pound sand.
Yes. From their web page:
Lord Feldon - Isn’t it common for the insurance to settle up relatively quickly, then pursue the claim with the person responsible? Like when you’re in a car accident, your insurance may pay out in a few days, but then the insurance company goes after the person at fault.
StG