Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 06-16-2018, 06:40 PM   #21
DeluxeMoustache
 
DeluxeMoustache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Exp:
Default

Good old America. There is nothing a lawsuit can’t fix.
DeluxeMoustache is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2018, 06:42 PM   #22
Jason14h
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

My dog just knocked over a $138,000 piece of art in my house. At least that’s the value I am putting on the piece of crap when I call my insurance company!!
Jason14h is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jason14h For This Useful Post:
Old 06-16-2018, 06:45 PM   #23
Wormius
Franchise Player
 
Wormius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnet Flame View Post
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.

Okay, I admit a little too sweeping. Anecdotally though, I saw no children who looked very engaged in the art at the Louvre, d'Orsay, l'Orangerie, Rodin, Picasso, or the National Gallery in Ottawa. They generally run around, makes lots of noise, and don't seem to really care. My kids also weren't interested. We tried, but they weren't, so we just instructed them to be quiet and bear with it until my wife and I were done.



I guess I wouldn't say that it's just kids, but adults who don't care either and just want to take a photo of every single painting or sculpture.
Wormius is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Wormius For This Useful Post:
Old 06-16-2018, 06:48 PM   #24
4X4
One of the Nine
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz View Post
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.
Yeah, pretty simple. People placing items "worth" $132,000 on rickety pedestals in places with kids. I, for one, like to park my Ferrari next to the cart return. People need to watch their carts.
4X4 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 4X4 For This Useful Post:
Old 06-16-2018, 06:59 PM   #25
Strange Brew
Franchise Player
 
Strange Brew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Exp:
Default

If the family had an umbrella insurance policy, wouldn’t it cover this?

I am not arguing the blame issue, just wondering where the money is coming from.
Strange Brew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2018, 08:51 PM   #26
Flashpoint
Not the 1 millionth post winnar
 
Flashpoint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Exp:
Default

The artist got to pick a number for the value and said he “didn’t have the desire” to repair the statue.

It’s a joke. It isn’t worth what he says it’s worth. And if it were worth even 1/10th of 130k it should have been behind at least a velvet rope.
__________________
"Isles give up 3 picks for 5.5 mil of cap space.

Oilers give up a pick and a player to take on 5.5 mil."
-Bax
Flashpoint is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Flashpoint For This Useful Post:
Old 06-16-2018, 09:00 PM   #27
FireGilbert
Franchise Player
 
FireGilbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Brisbane
Exp:
Default

I just asked my wife, an insurance broker, about the one. Obviously things are different in American but supposedly it is standard practice for an insurance company to go after the parents in a case like this. The parents would hopefully be covered by their own contents insurance however and the two insurance companies would then battle it out in court to reach an agreement.

For example my nephew recently ran his bike into a parked car. The damage to the car ended up being covered by his Mum's contents insurance.
__________________
The masses of humanity have always had to surf.
FireGilbert is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to FireGilbert For This Useful Post:
Old 06-16-2018, 11:35 PM   #28
bizaro86
Franchise Player
 
bizaro86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4X4 View Post
Yeah, pretty simple. People placing items "worth" $132,000 on rickety pedestals in places with kids. I, for one, like to park my Ferrari next to the cart return. People need to watch their carts.
For the metaphor to be correct, I think your car needs to be a 2002 Pontiac Grand Am with "Ferrari" painted on the side. Then, you tell the insurance company it's a 6 figure car, and they for some reason pay it.
bizaro86 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
Old 06-17-2018, 12:07 AM   #29
Wormius
Franchise Player
 
Wormius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4X4 View Post
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.

I don't think there needs to be a sign or a rope or anything. Don't touch what doesn't belong to you is a pretty simple concept.



In a lot of cases, there is nothing guarding priceless pieces of art in museums around the world, and yet this kind of thing doesn't happen all that frequently. This just leads me to believe that it's really only the fault of the parents and child here, who seem to be outliers when considering millions of people who are able to visit a museum and be around paintings and sculptures without destroying them in the absence of ropes or signs.


And it's people like this family, who shrug it off because it happened to be some local artist, and believe it ought to be cheaper, that are going to make it so museums have to have guards around every piece of art to prevent some clutz from breaking or touching something.
Wormius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2018, 02:27 AM   #30
JD
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Not Abu Dhabi
Exp:
Default

This seems to be one of those situations where all parties involved are contributing to a bad situation. Making it more ugly than it should have been.

Parents were negligent in the care of their child and dismissive of the value of the item.

The Gallery failed to implement precautions to safeguard a valuable item.

Artist seems to overinflate the value of his art.

Insurance company doesn't want to be held responsible and goes after the party that has the least means to defend itself.

Ugh. This is why I try to avoid the news.
JD is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JD For This Useful Post:
Old 06-17-2018, 08:08 AM   #31
Bob Loblaw
Draft Pick
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Default

When does the statue of limitations expire in this matter?
Bob Loblaw is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bob Loblaw For This Useful Post:
Old 06-17-2018, 08:12 AM   #32
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormius View Post
I don't think there needs to be a sign or a rope or anything. Don't touch what doesn't belong to you is a pretty simple concept.



In a lot of cases, there is nothing guarding priceless pieces of art in museums around the world, and yet this kind of thing doesn't happen all that frequently. This just leads me to believe that it's really only the fault of the parents and child here, who seem to be outliers when considering millions of people who are able to visit a museum and be around paintings and sculptures without destroying them in the absence of ropes or signs.


And it's people like this family, who shrug it off because it happened to be some local artist, and believe it ought to be cheaper, that are going to make it so museums have to have guards around every piece of art to prevent some clutz from breaking or touching something.
I disagree that priceless art doesn't have guards or rope.

I was just in the Chicago Art museum. Every room with paintings has a staff person asking people to stand behind the lines painted in the floor to prevent touching. Asking people not to use flash when photographing art.

This also wasn't an Art Gallery from the sounds of it. It was a display in the Community Center that they were at a wedding at. That is a different level of expected behaviour.

This piece of Art ought to be cheaper because there is no evidence that this Artist has ever had something this valuable not because the parents think it should be less

Also most pairing and sculptures are pretty durable. You can climb on a Rodan Bronze and the Marbles will likely not break as well. Paintigs are well secured and touching causes long term rather than immediate damage.

Not to excuse the parents here but it wasn't a museum or gallery, the delicate piece was to properly secured (it shouldn't topple when grabbed just from a theft standpoint, I'm not asking for glass) and it's being over valued by the artist.

I'd say the parents are 50% responsible for the cost of materials plus hours put into the art.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2018, 09:37 AM   #33
bizaro86
Franchise Player
 
bizaro86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormius View Post
I don't think there needs to be a sign or a rope or anything. Don't touch what doesn't belong to you is a pretty simple concept.



In a lot of cases, there is nothing guarding priceless pieces of art in museums around the world, and yet this kind of thing doesn't happen all that frequently. This just leads me to believe that it's really only the fault of the parents and child here, who seem to be outliers when considering millions of people who are able to visit a museum and be around paintings and sculptures without destroying them in the absence of ropes or signs.


And it's people like this family, who shrug it off because it happened to be some local artist, and believe it ought to be cheaper, that are going to make it so museums have to have guards around every piece of art to prevent some clutz from breaking or touching something.
I don't think anyone is saying it's local therefore automatically cheaper. It's more like, look at the artists other work to estimate a comparable value. If that piece had already sold for six figures where the artist lives wouldn't matter.
bizaro86 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
Old 06-17-2018, 10:01 AM   #34
8 Ball
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Exp:
Default

It seems rather unsafe to have a statue on display that is not secured. What if it fell on a smaller child and injured them?
8 Ball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2018, 01:36 PM   #35
topfiverecords
Franchise Player
 
topfiverecords's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hyperbole Chamber
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8 Ball View Post
It seems rather unsafe to have a statue on display that is not secured. What if it fell on a smaller child and injured them?
The insurance company would offer them $800.
topfiverecords is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:36 PM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021