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

[EmmieJ]

1 hour ago, HarryPotterFan said:

I think multiple parties are at fault in this situation.

I agree.  I place blame with the Community Center for not more securely placing that valuable piece of artwork.  This time, a small child was able to knock it over.  What if someone had tripped when walking by and knocked into the piece?  Was it so unstable that it could have fallen over then too? 

But whenever I was out in public with my son when he was small and didn't know better, I kept him close by me.  In part because I was super cautious about someone snatching him (yes, I was a total worry wart but it does happen, so I would rather have been safe than eternally sorry), and also because he was a little kid full of energy and curiosity and I wanted to be close enough to intervene in any situation that might arise.  I mean, one time we were out hiking in a local park and I swear I just turned around to talk to my friend for a minute and the next thing I know, my kid is halfway up a tree.  So when you have little kids, stuff can happen pretty quick.  Mom or Dad should have been keeping that little guy a bit closer.

Finally, I blame the insurance company for trying to weasel out of paying on a claim.  They gladly took the Community Center's money for a policy to cover damage, but now they don't want to have to pay out. 

[Maggie Mae]

3 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

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/

The photos on their website don't look at all like the room where it happened.  I'm confused. The website makes it look like a crappy gym, but the video looks much more modern.  

I still think that if your kid breaks something, you buy it. The facility is not responsible for your terrible parenting. If you can't watch your kid, stay home. 

2 hours ago, EmmieJ said:

I agree.  I place blame with the Community Center for not more securely placing that valuable piece of artwork.  This time, a small child was able to knock it over.  What if someone had tripped when walking by and knocked into the piece?  Was it so unstable that it could have fallen over then too? 

If someone had tripped and it had fallen over, than it's an accident and covered by insurance. And most responsible people feel bad and offer to pay what they can. 

I'm assuming that the family doesn't have the money to pay for the art that her kid ruined, but it's not the artists fault. 

 

[Kittikatz]

@HarryPotterFan it was in the contract. She was in a massively dreamy state leading up to the wedding so she wasn't absorbing anything that didn't mesh with her vision of perfection. Multiple people were trying to steer her toward a nodding acquaintance with reality, but nothing worked. Her 'big day' was a series of wall to wall tempertantrums by the bride - all because the reality wasn't what she imagined. Someone wound up slipping her a valium to take the edge off. It was ugly.

[HarryPotterFan]

22 minutes ago, Kittikatz said:

@HarryPotterFan it was in the contract. She was in a massively dreamy state leading up to the wedding so she wasn't absorbing anything that didn't mesh with her vision of perfection. Multiple people were trying to steer her toward a nodding acquaintance with reality, but nothing worked. Her 'big day' was a series of wall to wall tempertantrums by the bride - all because the reality wasn't what she imagined. Someone wound up slipping her a valium to take the edge off. It was ugly.

Wow. This seems like one of those times a bride forgets the whole point of a wedding...ya know, getting married to someone you love.

[Maggie Mae]

On 6/20/2018 at 1:29 PM, 47of74 said:

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.

There's one more element to Van Camp, though, and that's the babysitter. If I read it correctly, they were trying to prove that the parents were negligent in warning the babysitter, and they also had to discuss if a three year old riding a tricycle on the sidewalk created a liability. I think they decided that IF the parents had known the kid was prone to smacking his trike into old ladies, they had a duty to warn the babysitter and show her how to restrain him; however, they didn't know because he hadn't demonstrated that before? (I could be wrong. You went to law school, not me.) 

[EmmieJ]

2 hours ago, Maggie Mae said:

If someone had tripped and it had fallen over, than it's an accident and covered by insurance.

My point was more about the stability (or instability) of that piece.  It should have been better secured.  Also, I don't consider the parents guilty of "terrible" parenting, more like "distracted" parenting, which happens to every single parent.  

[Shadoewolf]

I don't know about calling them terrible parents but Youngest just turned 10 and I won't allow him into places like Yankee Candle, Le Crueset or Williams and Sonoma. He still can't control his impulses sometimes and he can be klutzy so its just not worth the risk of having him touch something or trip and take down a display of 50 glass candles that cost $30+ a piece. As his mom, it's my responsibility to know these things and adjust accordingly.

The child's parents should have kept him closer and the center should've secured the artwork better. If insurance won't pay, then split the cost 50/50 between the two and be done with it. Or have it appraised by a 3rd party art expert and split that between the two.  Expensive lesson would be learned by both.

[unsafetydancer]

From watching the video, I don't think that either of the women sitting on the chairs is the kid's mother so if his parents weren't in the same room then they weren't exactly supervising him. Having worked in a community space it does bug me that some parents' definition of "supervision" is being in the same building as their kids but not watching them in any way. I've also had kids go barrelling into me while I carry hot coffee to a table because their parent was on his/her phone. 

I get that kids can find crazy inventive ways to break stuff or hurt themselves, I work with kids and I've seen a few out of control tantrums, but that's why parents/adults should watch out for what their kids are doing. If he ran ahead while his parents were talking to the bride and groom then one parent should have gone and led him back. I've seen so many instances of kids not being supervised and breaking stuff excused by parents as "he's just little" or "he ran away from me while I was busy". Nope. It's why I actually approve of those "baby leashes" someone mentioned earlier for young kids, even just to stop them from running into the road or grabbing stuff they shouldn't have.

I still think the insurance should pay out though since it would probably pay out if the art was stolen or deliberately vandalised by an adult.

 

[Rowan]

2 hours ago, unsafetydancer said:

I still think the insurance should pay out though since it would probably pay out if the art was stolen or deliberately vandalised by an adult.

Except then if the perpetrator was known, the insurance would then go after the responsible party for the payout amount. So it still comes out to the person who did the damage being personally responsible.