5 year old child breaks $130,000 art piece - Page 9

Marp · ‎03-09-2010

@NYC Susan wrote:

This isn't a museum, and the parents had no way of knowing that something of this value would be displayed. It's a community center, not a place that unprotected expensive pieces of art are routinely just out in the open. It was foolish to have it displayed that way.

Having said that, I think the parents were also foolish to let such a young child out of their sight, not so much because of damage that might be done but rather because someone could have grabbed that kid and taken off. Kidnappings happen in the blink of an eye.

As for responsibility for the art piece, IMO the child was unsupervised so the parents are partly at fault. But they're not fully responsible because there was no reasonable expectation that expensive artwork would be displayed that way in that setting.

I'll go along with the parents not knowing about the art work if they are from out of town. If they are local they knew or should have known.

Excerpt from kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article213160979.html#wgt=trending:

“This loss occurred when your son was in a closed area of the property and toppled a glass sculpture. Under common law in Kansas, you are responsible for the supervision of a minor child and your failure to monitor them during this loss could be considered negligent,” the letter said, asking for her insurance information. “The cost of the sculpture damaged is estimated at $132,000.”

Overland Park city spokesman Sean Reilly said the artwork was on loan to the city and was the city's responsibility. He said that years ago, the City Council approved art pieces in city facilities, including the Matt Ross and Tomahawk Ridge community centers, and sees art as an attraction for its public buildings.

The eyes through which you see others may be the same as how they see you.

katiemichelle · ‎06-10-2015

I just cannot believe there are those who do not think these parents were at fault! Has the world gone crazy??? So, it was a community center, not an art gallery - doesn't matter!! Regarding the artist, the insurance - doesn't matter!!

This is not a complex matter and there are not many factions to be considered!

Neither the mother or the father was even in the same room as the little darling! That is what matters here!! A five year old and a seven year old (or, whatever) need to be in a parent's sight at all times! If you don't know this, you should not be parenting. It is so simple!!

Katcat1 · ‎07-21-2011

Yes, the parents that disappear not concerned about the child(ren). I do think the parents are at fault. However, the art gallery should have a sign that all children need to be attended by an adult at all times. I wonder what the outcome will be.

kindness is strength

Kitlynn · ‎03-09-2010

Pretty to look at, pretty to hold, but if you break me consider me sold! That applies to people of all ages and if you take a child in somewhere there are breakables then it is on you to make sure they don't touch anything.This of course is my opinion.

grandma r · ‎10-26-2010

I saw the video. Two children running around with no supervision. The mom was sitting away from the children, chatting with other moms. None of them reacted!!! The child decided to climb up the pedestal and when he grabbed the statue it fell. Mom still didn't react. Fortunately the child wasn't injured!!!! Now she is outraged that she received a bill for the damage. She claims if children are allowed to enter these places, it is the fault of management if valuables are on display!!!! Seriously????? What part of parental supervision does this woman not understand????? You, the parent, are responsible for your child in public places. That means that you don't allow children to run around and be totally unsupervised.

ScarletDove · ‎07-11-2010

@Jordan2 wrote:
When I was a kid, if I went into a store with expensive breakable merchandise, I was told to keep my hands at my side and not touch anything, and I listened!

@Jordan2 Same for me, no question, and my kids were taught to keep their hands to themselves and not touch anything that did not belong to them, anywhere, and they listened. Do not see much of that today.

fourpaws56 · ‎03-04-2015

they should have gone to Chuckee Cheese...

lightswitch · ‎03-10-2010

Bumping into something is different than intentionally causing damage. If you saw the video it was not an accident.

The area where the child was running around was not a rec area and he stopped and pulled on the art work.

tansy · ‎01-02-2011

I think there’s plenty of blame to go around.

Who decided on the value of the art piece? An asking price isn’t necessarily the true value.

It should have been better protected and the kid should have been within the mother’s eyesight.

GCR18 · ‎07-03-2013

I think the parents should be responsible. They were talking to the bride and groom and the child was down the hall. If he wasn't with them, didn't they wonder where he was. My Sister let her kids run wild in public when they were small.