Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - Parents to pay for broken $132,000 Statue

WhiteTiger · 06-16-2018, 03:10 PM

I'm seeing this story around my feeds lately:

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/...culpture-132k/

Basically, an unsupervised 5yo gave a statue in a community center a hug. The statue fell over and broke. The insurance company is coming after the parents for the $132,000 price tag of the statue. The parents are shocked and feel that they aren't responsible for the damage their child caused.

A lot of split opinions on this one, from what I can see. To me, it seems pretty straightforward. Kid broke statue. Kid sure can't pay for statue. People responsible for kid pay for statue. It sure sucks, but the statue is damaged due to the parents negligence.

Or should their be a limit on this sort of thing? Parent's are responsible for say...up to $10,000 of jr's property damage, and the rest is something the victim just has to eat the cost of?

Or is this a case of a kid being tempted to touch a shiny that didn't have enough security measures around it to prevent kids from resisting its siren song?

06-16-2018, 03:10 PM	#1
WhiteTiger Franchise Player Join Date: Nov 2010 Exp:	Parents to pay for broken $132,000 Statue I'm seeing this story around my feeds lately: http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/...culpture-132k/ Basically, an unsupervised 5yo gave a statue in a community center a hug. The statue fell over and broke. The insurance company is coming after the parents for the $132,000 price tag of the statue. The parents are shocked and feel that they aren't responsible for the damage their child caused. A lot of split opinions on this one, from what I can see. To me, it seems pretty straightforward. Kid broke statue. Kid sure can't pay for statue. People responsible for kid pay for statue. It sure sucks, but the statue is damaged due to the parents negligence. Or should their be a limit on this sort of thing? Parent's are responsible for say...up to $10,000 of jr's property damage, and the rest is something the victim just has to eat the cost of? Or is this a case of a kid being tempted to touch a shiny that didn't have enough security measures around it to prevent kids from resisting its siren song?