Kansas city bills parents $132,000 after child damages glass sculpture

[Doctor Amadeus]

Then they should ban kids from visiting it.

Perhaps, which is why I voted 50/50. I agree kids like people are unpredictable, and as such I also think the $132,000 bill is out of line for the exact reason you suggest.

But it was the kids fault, there is no debating that.

[cordrann]

100% the parent's fault. The bill is appropriate.

That insurance will cover the damage is how the gallery covers its own ass and doesn't get sued by the artist. That doesn't mean the situation ends. If you get in a car accident that's the other guy's fault, your insurance will cover your damages, and then pursue the guy whose fault it was to pay for those damages. Same here, we're just dealing with a piece of art rather than a car.

Is it harsh? Sure. It's harsh because the kid broke something worth a hell of a lot. Because the parents weren't controlling their children. These kinds of penalties are how we ensure people don't do that kind of shit in the first place, or at least hold them responsible when they do so.

Don't want to pay $132,000? Don't do $132,000 worth of damage.

Just no. A top heavy sculpture was totally unsecured on top of an unstable pedestal. The venue is at least partially to blame and should be greatful the kid wasn't seriously injured, not sending a life destroying bill to parents who momentarily lost track of their kid (which happens to basically every parent at one point).

[Themius]

Just no. A top heavy sculpture was totally unsecured on top of an unstable pedestal. The venue is at least partially to blame and should be greatful the kid wasn't seriously injured, not sending a life destroying bill to parents who momentarily lost track of their kid (which happens to basically every parent at one point).

The pedestal is actually the sculpture, the entire piece is. It was secured with clips.

If I was an artist i'd probably want to make sure it was like...idk more secure.

Also the price tag just seems unreasonable. Prior to this story I can't find out anythign about the artist or the prices of his other works, he is really almost a nobody, and while he did have it listed at 132k, that doesn't mean must, anyone can list anything at any price.

[Doctor Amadeus]

So now you're telling me what I can and can't imagine? The space between those two sculptures doesn't look like much and if you have a couple adults walking in that area I can see one tripping on the bottom of the statue.

It is reasonable, stop being obtuse.

Nope, I am giving my opinion. And the likelyhood you could imagine that or that you are simply saying that in order not to concede a point. This happened because the kid touched the statue, and it was no other danger besides that or misplaced in a way that anyone other than a kid or something very fucking stupid could have had that happen.

The only reason it could be besides what I said is a medical condition. But I am willing to make bets that people with disabilities of all types have made it through this and many other exhibits just fine

[Ghostpanther]

Perhaps, which is why I voted 50/50. I agree kids like people are unpredictable, and as such I also think the $132,000 bill is out of line for the exact reason you suggest.

But it was the kids fault, there is no debating that.

There is no question the kid caused the statue to fall. But there is no question the museum did not properly secure the statue to help prevent such accidents. I can easily see a good defense lawyer winning the case for the parents. In fact, if the kid had been injured, the museum would paying the parents more than they want.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Just no. A top heavy sculpture was totally unsecured on top of an unstable pedestal. The venue is at least partially to blame and should be greatful the kid wasn't seriously injured, not sending a life destroying bill to parents who momentarily lost track of their kid (which happens to basically every parent at one point).

Hahaha which was fine until the kid went up to touch it. If it fell all by itself that would be different if it was in any danger that would have been different. It wasn't this little shit went up and touched it, which you aren't supposed to do for this reason.

It's a Museum not Legoland.

[Themius]

There is no question the kid caused the statue to fall. But there is no question the museum did not properly secure the statue to help prevent such accidents. I can easily see a good defense lawyer winning the case for the parents. I fact, if the kid had been injured. the museum would paying the parents more than they want.

It's not really the museums fault for the lack of security in the statue (regarding how well it was attached) it is actually the artist's, because it is all part of the sculpture:



They could have just put some rope.

[Ghostpanther]

It's not really the museums fault for the lack of security in the statue (regarding how well it was attached) it is actually the artists, because it is all part of the sculpture:



They could have just put some rope.

I disagree. The museum is the ones displaying it. It their responsibility to ensure it is safe out in the open like that unsecured. If not, then secure it.

[Doctor Amadeus]

There is no question the kid caused the statue to fall. But there is no question the museum did not properly secure the statue to help prevent such accidents. I can easily see a good defense lawyer winning the case for the parents. I fact, if the kid had been injured. the museum would paying the parents more than they want.

Based on what, please break it down, what was that piece doing it shouldn't have that any one in their right mind would have been safe from so long as they didn't go up and do the 1 thing you aren't supposed to do in a museum.

Dude it isn't a ZOO, it's a museum you only have ONE JOB, ONE JOB! Don't touch, the kid did, because the parents didn't do their job, that is why it wasn't secure.

I mean otherwise it could have been in a vault, 9 by 9 thick steel with motion sensors and a camera focused on it in a closed room, but then you know what It's wouldn't be a Museum!

The entire point is to look at the pieces without doing anything else

[Ghostpanther]

Hahaha which was fine until the kid went up to touch it. If it fell all by itself that would be different if it was in any danger that would have been different. It wasn't this little shit went up and touched it, which you aren't supposed to do for this reason.

It's a Museum not Legoland.

Yeah and it is a danger to little kids if it was to fall right way on top of them.

[Themius]

I disagree. The museum is the ones displaying it. It their responsibility to ensure it is safe out in the open like that unsecured. If not, then secure it.

regarding how well it is attached was the artist's decision, regarding overall security due to the fragile nature of the statue it should have had rope or something around it. To deter people.

[DrStiglit]

The suite is required for the insurance. It's just part of the process. The family will pay nothing.

[Themius]

Based on what, please break it down, what was that piece doing it shouldn't have that any one in their right mind would have been safe from so long as they didn't go up and do the 1 thing you aren't supposed to do in a museum.

Dude it isn't a ZOO, it's a museum you only have ONE JOB, ONE JOB! Don't touch, the kid did, because the parents didn't do their job, that is why it wasn't secure.

I mean otherwise it could have been in a vault, 9 by 9 thick steel with motion sensors and a camera focused on it in a closed room, but then you know what It's wouldn't be a Museum!

The entire point is to look at the pieces without doing anything else

It is a reasonable assumption that children will touch things they shouldn't, when you own any type of business. So having a poorly secured statue that can cause injury to a child if a child were to touch it, is a worry.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I disagree. The museum is the ones displaying it. It their responsibility to ensure it is safe out in the open like that unsecured. If not, then secure it.

What part of Museum eludes you. If you are doing anything besides not touching it and it fell or this happened you'd have a point. But you don't this is all on the kid. That being said, the only question might be is should children be allowed in the Museum

[Ghostpanther]

Based on what, please break it down, what was that piece doing it shouldn't have that any one in their right mind would have been safe from so long as they didn't go up and do the 1 thing you aren't supposed to do in a museum.

Dude it isn't a ZOO, it's a museum you only have ONE JOB, ONE JOB! Don't touch, the kid did, because the parents didn't do their job, that is why it wasn't secure.

I mean otherwise it could have been in a vault, 9 by 9 thick steel with motion sensors and a camera focused on it in a closed room, but then you know what It's wouldn't be a Museum!

The entire point is to look at the pieces without doing anything else

I have been to museums and the really valuable things are ether under glass or behind a roped off area visitors are not suppose to go beyond. Even then, they should not have anything which is unsafe around people, without a guard standing there or a secure way to keep it from falling and injuring someone.

Easy case for a defense lawyer.

[Scottyjscizzle]

No, they really don't, but their parents should know better.

Kid looks to be well old enough to know not to fuck with shit like that.

[Doctor Amadeus]

It is a reasonable assumption that children will touch things they shouldn't, when you own any type of business. So having a poorly secured statue that can cause injury to a child if a child were to touch it, is a worry.

Well I will agree with you on this, but your example wasn't exclusive to children, your suggestions is anyone could have simply accidently brushed passed it or done this. I am saying no they wouldn't and don't.

As for children in general, most children are taught what not to do in a Museum, however if museums are a place that a less accessible or a no go because someone can't teach their kids 1 fucking rule, I think that is a case of the few not being as valuable as the many, and the problem being that if the kid doesn't know that parents need to be stuck with the bill if this shit happens.

[elaina]

Kid looks to be well old enough to know not to fuck with shit like that.

Having been around five year olds I can tell you that MANY are not. They are still spazzes at that age.

The fact that he fell on the statue after dropping it.... priceless. Or at least $132k worth

[Ghostpanther]

regarding how well it is attached was the artist's decision, regarding overall security due to the fragile nature of the statue it should have had rope or something around it. To deter people.

I agree with that. So anything the museum has on display, should be safe for public display. And kids will be kids. Sure the parents are also responsible. But you can not rely all the time on the parents to keep their eye on their kids in a environment like that. I agree they should however, but humans make mistakes.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I have been to museums and the really valuable things are ether under glass or behind a roped off area visitors are not suppose to go beyond. Even then, they should not have anything which is unsafe around people, without a guard standing there or a secure way to keep it from falling and injuring someone.

Easy case for a defense lawyer.

Not a easy case for a defense lawyer, because you would have to show a pattern, or evidence that anybody other than someone obviously defective or not being parented does this kind of thing.

Some Museums do have better funding than others, and some even take additional steps to protect their piece for various reasons. I don't think most are done with the idea that most people with a functioning intelligence, are going to try to molest the exhibit.