Jump to content
IGNORED

Unsupervised child destroys artwork, parents refuse to pay for it.


adidas

Recommended Posts

Linking to two different stories about it, but neither are from highly regarded reporting agencies ;)

https://www.9news.com.au/world/2018/06/17/08/40/sarah-goodman-statue-overland-park-kansas-city-accident-boy-insurance-damage

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/kids/parents-cop-177k-fine-after-their-fiveyearold-knocked-over-a-statue/news-story/f6a23f117d5870973ce24b060501f91e

Short story: kid tries to hug glass statue, accidentally smashes it. Parents are sent the $177,000 bill for it, but they are refusing to pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not in favor of parents letting their kids run wild, but this doesn't appear to be a case of parental negligence. Frankly, the center where this statue was exhibited should be thanking their lucky stars the statue didn't injure the child when it fell. That could have been a very expensive lawsuit, and if a hug from a five-year-old child was enough to bring the statue down, it clearly wasn't very well secured. Which might be one thing in a proper gallery with guards and signs all over the place, but in a community center that advertises video games and childcare? The area in which this took place appears to be a sort of lounge, with sofas and side tables, and looking at it, I'd say the parents had a reasonable expectation that the area would be safe for their children to play in. Seems like a pretty clear case of negligence on the part of the community center, and I for one would be very surprised if the city's legal counsel continue to pursue this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the article about this on the Kansas City Star's website.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article213160979.html

It says they were there for a wedding reception and that the accident happened right at the end.

Quote

Goodman said her family, including her husband and four children, were attending a wedding reception at the center that afternoon and were getting ready to leave.

The mom seems pretty sure that their kids weren't running wild.

Quote

“Our kids were well-supervised and well-behaved,” she said. “We were just standing down the hallway following the bride and groom out.”

It seems like there are some places that are rented out for weddings and wedding receptions that aren't always the best place for a family and kid friendly wedding. My city's main art museum can be rented for events, including weddings. I was told by a wedding planner about an art installation that was at a reception she coordinated. It looked like a carousel, but it had windows or flaps for people to open and look at the picture. The pictures were designed to shock, as a contrast to the carousel. Pictures of starving children, for example. She told me that she spent a large part of the evening helping the parents shoo the children away from the "carousel". 

I've seen kids running amok at wedding receptions, but even a well behaved and supervised kid can run into trouble pretty quickly in the wrong environment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He had been told about climbing it earlier on, I think the insurance is trying to escape paying for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like we have the next Van Camp v. McAfoos here.  That case was where a three year old ran into an lady with his tricycle and she sued the parents.  I wonder if this case will get decided along similar lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your kid destroys something, of any monetary value, while out in public, you do the normal person thing.

Run like the fucking wind. Don't say your congrats, don't say your goodbyes, you get the hell out of dodge. Then after you run, you put on your jaunty "plausible deniability" hat. If there is video of your kid knocking something down, and you really CAN'T deny it, you put on your jaunty "they tripped" hat, or the "I don't see what you are seeing, it looks like they tripped" hat.

Basically, admit NO fault, while hauling ass out of the area. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It's a parent's responsibility to make sure their kids don't ruin things that aren't theirs.  It's not like the kid tripped and fell.  The kid deliberately put his arms around the statue.  There's video.  It wasn't a quick hug while walking by.  It looked like he was trying to pull on it.  His mom was on a nearby couch not paying attention.  That's not even attempting to supervise.  I think she's trying to claim after the fact that it was "just a hug."  No, the video, looks like he was actively pulling it.

Yeah, the center probably had insurance that would pay for an accident.  Since the video shows an unsupervised child deliberately grabbing it and the parent nearby doing nothing to stop her son, the insurance might be turning this claim down.  But regardless, even if we or our kids cause damage to someone else's property accidentally, the adult thing to do is offer to pay.  If I cause a car accident, even accidentally, even if it's something like my car tires hitting some black ice and causing me to slam into another car, even though there was literally nothing I did wrong the way Nurie Rodrigues caused an accident by taking her attention off the road to fiddle with the AC, I'm still responsible for repairing any damage to the other person's vehicle.  When one of my kids and the neighbor kid were playing with an iPad, started arguing over whose turn, and it ended up getting dropped and breaking and they were at mutual fault, I was responsible for half of the replacement cost.  It was an accident, but I still choked up money.  My daughter didn't know it would break. 

That kid at the museum didn't accidentally hug the statue.  He deliberately put his arms on the statue and leaned back.  Maybe he play-hugs people like that, but he still pulled the statue for several seconds.  His mother wasn't paying attention, and is responsible for him.  The responsible, adult thing would have been to humbly offer to pay somehow, and I bet the center, even if the insurance wouldn't cover it because the kid didn't accidentally grab the statue, would probably have waived it.  This is news because a parent didn't supervise a kid, who then grabbed a statue on purpose, broke it, and then that parent is claiming complete innocence.

And no, museums shouldn't have to bolt down artwork.  Doing that would cause damage to the artwork.  You can't bolt stuff without adding holes.  I've been to a lot of museums.  Aside from the Mona Lisa, I've seen very few things behind glass.  It's stunning how close I've been able to get to some artwork, I'm talking about my face inches away while looking at some small detail.  That's why art isn't usually behind glass or bolted down.  People going near art are expected to not fuck around and to supervise their kids, and if the kids are being too wild and not listening, to take them out.  I've left museums when my kids wouldn't settle down.  It's called parenting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jug Band Baby said:

It's a parent's responsibility to make sure their kids don't ruin things that aren't theirs.  It's not like the kid tripped and fell.  The kid deliberately put his arms around the statue.  There's video.  It wasn't a quick hug while walking by.  It looked like he was trying to pull on it.  His mom was on a nearby couch not paying attention.  That's not even attempting to supervise.  I think she's trying to claim after the fact that it was "just a hug."  No, the video, looks like he was actively pulling it.

Yeah, the center probably had insurance that would pay for an accident.  Since the video shows an unsupervised child deliberately grabbing it and the parent nearby doing nothing to stop her son, the insurance might be turning this claim down.  But regardless, even if we or our kids cause damage to someone else's property accidentally, the adult thing to do is offer to pay.  If I cause a car accident, even accidentally, even if it's something like my car tires hitting some black ice and causing me to slam into another car, even though there was literally nothing I did wrong the way Nurie Rodrigues caused an accident by taking her attention off the road to fiddle with the AC, I'm still responsible for repairing any damage to the other person's vehicle.  When one of my kids and the neighbor kid were playing with an iPad, started arguing over whose turn, and it ended up getting dropped and breaking and they were at mutual fault, I was responsible for half of the replacement cost.  It was an accident, but I still choked up money.  My daughter didn't know it would break. 

That kid at the museum didn't accidentally hug the statue.  He deliberately put his arms on the statue and leaned back.  Maybe he play-hugs people like that, but he still pulled the statue for several seconds.  His mother wasn't paying attention, and is responsible for him.  The responsible, adult thing would have been to humbly offer to pay somehow, and I bet the center, even if the insurance wouldn't cover it because the kid didn't accidentally grab the statue, would probably have waived it.  This is news because a parent didn't supervise a kid, who then grabbed a statue on purpose, broke it, and then that parent is claiming complete innocence.

And no, museums shouldn't have to bolt down artwork.  Doing that would cause damage to the artwork.  You can't bolt stuff without adding holes.  I've been to a lot of museums.  Aside from the Mona Lisa, I've seen very few things behind glass.  It's stunning how close I've been able to get to some artwork, I'm talking about my face inches away while looking at some small detail.  That's why art isn't usually behind glass or bolted down.  People going near art are expected to not fuck around and to supervise their kids, and if the kids are being too wild and not listening, to take them out.  I've left museums when my kids wouldn't settle down.  It's called parenting.

No. It is absolutely the community centers responsibility to secure the art work. A community center is not a museum. It is a place where the community gathers. The community includes small children. If you are going to have fragile pieces in that setting you have three options : 1- Secure it. 2- Put fragile, expensive pieces that may be damaged in a separate display area. Not in the main public area. 3- Just don’t do it. Work with a local museum to display high value, delicate pieces there. Display sturdier works that can be properly secured at the community center. 

It’s an inappropriate setting for that particular piece of art. The center screwed up, and their officials are making it worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mother didn't supervise her kid.  He apparently thinks it's okay to go grabbing onto things that aren't his.  No wonder.  With a mother who blames everyone else for her son yanking on things that aren't his, how will he ever learn to keep his hands to himself unless he asks to touch things that aren't his?  It doesn't matter that it's expensive art.  The same would go for a plant or a lamp on a table or a vase.  He wasn't supervised.  He purposefully grabbed it and leaned away.  She's entirely excused his behavior as well as her own failure to tell her son to walk when indoors and don't touch things that don't belong to him because she apparently thinks it's everyone else's responsibility to keep her son out of trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Jug Band Baby said:

The mother didn't supervise her kid.  He apparently thinks it's okay to go grabbing onto things that aren't his.  No wonder.  With a mother who blames everyone else for her son yanking on things that aren't his, how will he ever learn to keep his hands to himself unless he asks to touch things that aren't his?  It doesn't matter that it's expensive art.  The same would go for a plant or a lamp on a table or a vase.  He wasn't supervised.  He purposefully grabbed it and leaned away.  She's entirely excused his behavior as well as her own failure to tell her son to walk when indoors and don't touch things that don't belong to him because she apparently thinks it's everyone else's responsibility to keep her son out of trouble.

Wrong.  “Properly supervise” does NOT = hover on top of small child. The parent’s had every right to assume that a Community Center ( again - a place open to the general community - which includes small children) - would not have fragile, costly items unsecured. That’s just plain common sense. The community center is extremely fortunate the child wasn’t hurt. They did not perform their job of providing a safe environment for the community ( or for providing sufficient care to the private property on loan ). They were clearly negligent. And are shifting blame to someone else. I know it’s more trendy to say “ no one’s watching the kiddddzzzzzz !!!” - but it is merely a deflection from the people who are actually at fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was young, the rule in stores and other public places was "hands in pockets or behind your back." To the extent that I notice myself still putting my hands behind my back if I'm just looking and not actively shopping at a store and I notice my sister doing it too. It is not up to the public areas to provide a safe place for kids to go crazy, it is up to parents to ensure their kids behave properly in public areas. 

There is no excuse for the mother's lack of supervision, for not knowing what the kid was doing even if she wasn't "hovering" over him. It wasn't a Children's Museum or the like that where it is designed for kids to play and explore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rowan said:

When I was young, the rule in stores and other public places was "hands in pockets or behind your back." To the extent that I notice myself still putting my hands behind my back if I'm just looking and not actively shopping at a store and I notice my sister doing it too. It is not up to the public areas to provide a safe place for kids to go crazy, it is up to parents to ensure their kids behave properly in public areas. 

There is no excuse for the mother's lack of supervision, for not knowing what the kid was doing even if she wasn't "hovering" over him. It wasn't a Children's Museum or the like that where it is designed for kids to play and explore. 

Your rule at a wedding reception, at a place that also offers kids classes and advertises childcare - was “ hands in your pockets “ ? Weird. Have you ever BEEN in a Community Center ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

Your rule at a wedding reception, at a place that also offers kids classes and advertises childcare - was “ hands in your pockets “ ? Weird. Have you ever BEEN in a Community Center ? 

Yes, in ANY place that wasn't specifically designed for children to free-play, my mom's rule was no touching. Period. And it, along with her supervision, worked because we didn't ever break anything - a $5 ornament or a $500,000 piece of art. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Rowan said:

Yes, in ANY place that wasn't specifically designed for children to free-play, my mom's rule was no touching. Period. And it, along with her supervision, worked because we didn't ever break anything - a $5 ornament or a $500,000 piece of art. 

Community Centers are places where children play. All. The. Time. It is one of their primary functions. The staff was negligent, which happens, but are now scape-gloating the kid. It’s irresponsible. 

I will add I live in Earthquake country - so the thought of heavy, expensive glass work like that being entirely unsecured is beyond idiotic, to me.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight. An extremely valuable and fragile statue was placed unsecured on a pedestal in a community centre within easy reach of very young children. A child knocked it off the pedestal and it broke, and now they're coming after the parents for the full cost of the statue.

Uh... the community centre is clearly at fault here. You don't leave something as valuable and fragile as that unsecured in a public space. That is absurd. Of course the child shouldn't have done it, and of course he should have been better supervised, but I think everyone understands how easy it is to blink and have your child escape your supervision long enough to get into trouble. If you are a perfect parent/abnormally lucky enough to have never had anything remotely like that happen to you, congratulations, and I also think you're a liar. It's just that your kid's momentary unsupervised errors were fortunately not in close proximity to an outrageously expensive and outrageously unsecured piece of art. Lucky you.

I'm also going to withhold judgement on the mother for refusing to admit any fault for now. That may be a legal necessity. A tiny admission of error on her part could completely screw her and leave her on the hook for $132,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Normally I'm not very tolerant of children on paths of destructuon. That said, I'm sorry but WTF? My city has a very beautiful art gallery with many expensive works. It is available for wedding rentals. One of my friends did this and was imagining a wedding reception with Degas paintings. The gallery took down every single art item from the areas they allow the receptions in. It was all white walls and wires dangling down from the picture rails. She was upset, but it made perfect sense to me - weddings are full of opportunities for things to go terribly wrong. That community centre shouldn't have had anything of value left out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't look a community center for children, it looks like an art gallery. And from the video, those kids were completely unsupervised. The rule in art galleries is "no touching." The kid was not "hugging it" it almost appeared like he was trying to feel up the boobs. 

There also weren't very many children, so I wonder if this was supposed to be a kid free wedding and the mom decided that she was above that suggestion as well. Or was there a room the kids were supposed to be in? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Kittikatz said:

Normally I'm not very tolerant of children on paths of destructuon. That said, I'm sorry but WTF? My city has a very beautiful art gallery with many expensive works. It is available for wedding rentals. One of my friends did this and was imagining a wedding reception with Degas paintings. The gallery took down every single art item from the areas they allow the receptions in. It was all white walls and wires dangling down from the picture rails. She was upset, but it made perfect sense to me - weddings are full of opportunities for things to go terribly wrong. That community centre shouldn't have had anything of value left out.

No one told her the paintings would be taken down? That’s poor policy on the museums part. I completely understand why, no one wants little children touching paintings or a drunk uncle falling head first into a Degas, but that’s something they should be up front about.

I think multiple parties are at fault in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Maggie Mae said:

That doesn't look a community center for children, it looks like an art gallery. And from the video, those kids were completely unsupervised. The rule in art galleries is "no touching." The kid was not "hugging it" it almost appeared like he was trying to feel up the boobs. 

There also weren't very many children, so I wonder if this was supposed to be a kid free wedding and the mom decided that she was above that suggestion as well. Or was there a room the kids were supposed to be in? 

Here’s the Community Center’s website. Definitely not a museum. Note the pool tables, work out machines, basketball courts etc... and it clearly marketed as a Place for active children and family’s. 

https://www.opkansas.org/things-to-see-and-do/community-centers/tomahawk-ridge-community-center/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, HarryPotterFan said:

No one told her the paintings would be taken down? That’s poor policy on the museums part.

It was probably in the contract.  It pays to read those things.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone else feel like there's more to this story? (I don't know what exactly,  just something.) It doesn't look like any community center I've ever seen, there's a ton of artwork on display, the mom isn't really dressed for a typical wedding, and it takes a while for her to get up after the sculpture falls (though that could be lag on the security footage). 

I think it was monumentally, colossally stupid for the community center to display a top heavy sculpture on a narrow podium like that. There needed to be someone from the center there to supervise the artwork during the wedding. Also, I agree that the expectation of parents constantly hovering over their kids isn't healthy for anyone.

However, the mom is also pinging my shady radar with her comments about her son being a loving, sweet boy and wanting to hug the sculpture. That's just a weird comment to make. She also said they were following the bride and groom out, while in the footage, it's clear she is sitting on a bench (assuming that's her).

She does appear a bit too lax in that video (which, granted is very short), considering she can see there are huge works of art on display and it's not a typical community center. I can understand expecting a more child-friendly setup, but once she saw it wasn't, she probably needed to adjust her supervision accordingly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get some side-eye about it sometimes, but this is why my toddler wears a little backpack harness when we go out certain places where she could run amuck or get those little hands in a lot of trouble. I'd rather be Mom who gets mocked for having toddler on a "leash" than Mom who gets caught on camera letting child destroy shit. (The kid in the video is clearly too old for any toddler safety device, though.)

That being said, would it have killed the community center to put the sculpture behind glass or something? We had our office Christmas party at an art gallery last year and all of the free standing exhibits were either removed or SEVERELY roped off.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were exposed in an art gallery they would be right in asking the family to repay for damages, but that was a community center ffs. People aren't going to behave in the same way in a community centre as in an art gallery. You also don't expect to sell a 132000$ piece showing it at a community center. The sort of buyer willing to spend that money isn't going to be found there. If the city had the fragile glass piece estimated and left it in reach of kids without securing it in any way, then it's upon them and their insurance to pay for it and they are damn lucky the kid didn't get injured beyond a couple of cuts.

Honestly when I read that the piece was still property of the artist, that he hoped to sell it exposing it at the community centre and that the amount of money is the artist's own asking price and therefore not the market price or a price established by a third party expert, I knew all I had to know. While I think that they could keep the kid more under control, it's clear that making them pay such an amount would be very unfair.

I don't consider myself a professional artist and I have never sold my artworks. But those few times I exposed my pieces together with other local artists in a public space given to us by the local council, we were required to guarantee continuous surveillance of the artworks under our own responsibility. The local council wanted zero responsibility for eventual damages. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

Does anyone else feel like there's more to this story? (I don't know what exactly,  just something.) It doesn't look like any community center I've ever seen, there's a ton of artwork on display, the mom isn't really dressed for a typical wedding, and it takes a while for her to get up after the sculpture falls (though that could be lag on the security footage). 

I think it was monumentally, colossally stupid for the community center to display a top heavy sculpture on a narrow podium like that. There needed to be someone from the center there to supervise the artwork during the wedding. Also, I agree that the expectation of parents constantly hovering over their kids isn't healthy for anyone.

However, the mom is also pinging my shady radar with her comments about her son being a loving, sweet boy and wanting to hug the sculpture. That's just a weird comment to make. She also said they were following the bride and groom out, while in the footage, it's clear she is sitting on a bench (assuming that's her).

She does appear a bit too lax in that video (which, granted is very short), considering she can see there are huge works of art on display and it's not a typical community center. I can understand expecting a more child-friendly setup, but once she saw it wasn't, she probably needed to adjust her supervision accordingly. 

I don’t think that’s the mom. I think it’s a random lady, probably waiting for her kid to get of a basketball practice or something. From the story it sounds like the parents were in the hallway saying goodbye to the bride and groom and the kids ran ahead.

also, I think the little boy was trying to hug the statues boobs. :banana-drums:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.