Parents to pay for broken $132,000 Statue

[WhiteTiger]

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?

[Locke]

I get where you're coming from and people have to be responsible for their actions.

But if something is worth $130K how can it be displayed in public in such a way that a 5 year-old could just casually knock it over? Theres got to be some contributory negligence there.

If he was beating the hell out of the thing to destroy it thats another story, but just knocking it over?

Go to any piece of public art and that stuff is borderline indestructible for reasons just such as this.

[Jiri Hrdina]

I think generally parents need to be watching their children but accidents happen, and if something is that valuable, it shouldn't be put in such a vulnerable place.
So I largely blame the community centre for being dumb.

[Red]

So an insurance company is refusing to pay for an accident?
They have some beef with the place that displayed this without any barriers or signs, but the parents should not be on the hook for an insured item.

[81MC]

I can’t see the insurance company winning this.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Red

So an insurance company is refusing to pay for an accident?
They have some beef with the place that displayed this without any barriers or signs, but the parents should not be on the hook for an insured item.

My understanding is that the insurance company is paying for the item, but then going to attempt to recoup their losses from the responsible party.

[White Out 403]

The only negligence here is the community centre for displaying such a valuable glass item with absolutely no safety measures in place.

[burn_this_city]

Parents should always let kids roam completely free around an art exhibit. My favorite part of the clip is the mother thinking it would be worth $800.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

The only negligence here is the community centre for displaying such a valuable glass item with absolutely no safety measures in place.

And/or the insurance company for insuring the thing in the first place with no stipulation for safety measures to manage the risk of damage.

Isn't that their job? Risk assessment and management?

[GGG]

The 132k is the number the artist made up of what it is worth.

[kermitology]

I’ve got a 5 year old and a 3 year old. I’ve often been distracted by one and had the other get into trouble. I get the sentiment that the parents are responsible, but how was a 5 year old able to destroy the statue?

[Wormius]

I know this was a community centre, but I think in general kids under the age of 14 probably shouldn’t be allowed in art galleries. Children don’t get it, mostly don’t want to be there, and are distracting to the people who do want to be there.

Around Ottawa and Paris in the art galleries, the children seemed to have zero interest and were irritating. It’s like being in a movie theatre with a bunch of chatty people, but worse.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I’ve got a 5 year old and a 3 year old. I’ve often been distracted by one and had the other get into trouble. I get the sentiment that the parents are responsible, but how was a 5 year old able to destroy the statue?

It was on a pedestal about shoulder height on him. He reached up and gave it a 'hug'. It toppled over off the pedestal. He tried to hold on, but he's got it around the bottom and the top comes right over, smashes onto the ground and then he falls on top of it, completing the destruction.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Parents should always let kids roam completely free around an art exhibit. My favorite part of the clip is the mother thinking it would be worth $800.

It's worth what someone is willing to pay, but I'm not sure work by Bill Lyons of Kansas City really moves the needle much in the art world. There's a piece in this auction by him that sold for $300:


http://kansascityartistscoalition.or...m-2018-web.pdf


The idea that some unknown from Kansas City is going to produce a sculpture worth $130K is laughable.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I know this was a community centre, but I think in general kids under the age of 14 probably shouldn’t be allowed in art galleries. Children don’t get it, mostly don’t want to be there, and are distracting to the people who do want to be there.

Around Ottawa and Paris in the art galleries, the children seemed to have zero interest and were irritating. It’s like being in a movie theatre with a bunch of chatty people, but worse.

My son is 13. He has been selling his art since he was 9 and visiting galleries since well before then. I get that some parents drag their uninterested kids to various things but yours is quite the sweeping statement.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by opendoor

It's worth what someone is willing to pay, but I'm not sure work by Bill Lyons of Kansas City really moves the needle much in the art world. There's a piece in this auction by him that sold for $300:


http://kansascityartistscoalition.or...m-2018-web.pdf


The idea that some unknown from Kansas City is going to produce a sculpture worth $130K is laughable.

I thought fossilized blue whale sperm was way more valuable.

[OMG!WTF!]

I also question the value of this work. 130k is Jim Dines territory. This guy has no record of sales in that bracket, or any other bracket really. I suppose he can ask, but I suspect any challenge would be met favorably in court.


The exact same thing happened to me with a Dali sculpture at an exhibition in kelowna a couple years ago. It was bronze falling on concrete in a big warehouse. That poor kid was stunned.

[surferguy]

Maybe they should submit the video to America Funniest Home Videos and hope to win the $100,000 Grand Prize at the end of the season.

[Weitz]

Pretty simple to me. Parents are/should be responsible. People, even kids, need to be responsible for their actions. Sure maybe it could have been protected better but that doesn’t absolve the parents and kid of their responsibility.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by surferguy

Maybe they should submit the video to America Funniest Home Videos and hope to win the $100,000 Grand Prize at the end of the season.

Yes, since there's no show called 'America's Most Pathetic Examples of Being Pathetic'.

I'm certainly not a negligent parent apologist, but if that paper mache piece of crap was worth $132,000, I think a little more than a velvet rope should be guarding it from little kids. And for that matter, why are little kids inside a gallery with such expensive works? What a scam. If it was actually that valuable, there'd be guards guarding it from being stolen, and the kid would have been bounced by them.