The woman in America who is being sued for $132000 after her son knocked a statue over and broke it. Is she being unreasonable or is the venue?

[witchofzog]

I just saw this on This Morning. She went to a wedding venue with works of art on display. Cctv shows her son playing with the displays and the statue then toppling and breaking. The mum was nowhere near her son and it took nearly 2 minutes for her to come to him after the accident. She states the art work should have been secured better and her son was just being a 5 year old.

Who is unreasonable here?

[AhoyDelBoy]

The mother I think.

[user1483387154]

The mother should have been supervising the child

[MeMyShelfandIkea]

If parent had been supervising and it happened anyway, I'd have said no one's fault. However the mum was 2 mins away therefore I'd say in this particular case she WBU.

[BaronessEllaSaturday]

From the description you give then the mother is

[user1485342611]

Well, I feel a bit sorry for her but maybe this will be a wake up call for parents who don't control their kids in public places.

[ArmySal]

The neglectful mother. Imagine if it had fell on him and killed him?

Too small to be running around unattended.

[BarbarianMum]

The venue. I think if you had something worth that much on display in an area where children could touch it you'd have someone keeping a close eye on it, or at least warn the parents.

[PinkHeart5914]

Maybe if she had been watching the child it wouldn’t of got broken

[choli]

The mother was being unreasonable to take the kid to such an unsuitable venue in the first place, and even more not to supervise him when there.

[witchofzog]

She is saying that she had been to the venue before, the art work was temporary and it should have been behind a glass screen or similar.

I think she should have been watching him. But jeez $132000

[KittyHawke80]

Er - she is. They’re not even suing her, they’re asking her insurance company to meet the cost, or at least arrive at a settlement. Insurance company unsurprisingly reluctant to pay for the bad behaviour of an unruly little shite. It was a prolonged period of non-supervision, not ‘I only turned my back fur a second; you know what kids are like’. I suppose, in mitigation, the piece could’ve been secured better, but the child climbed up and wrestled it off a plinth, so clearly hasn’t been told not to touch things that are demonstrably not to be played with. I daresay he could still have smashed or damaged it that way, had it been in a glass box.

[Mari50]

The mother, she wasn’t supervising her child and barely reacted when he tipped the sculpture over.
And if he ‘was just being 5’ then she was obviously aware that his behaviour warranted better supervision so again SIBU.
That said if my 5 yr old knocked over a sculpture and I was hit with a 6 figure bill I’d be deflecting as much as possible too.

[Elementtree]

The venue. Insurance should cover the cost and they should have done more to protect their assets.

The sculpture wouldn't be worth any less if the mother had been stood right beside him when it happened so that is just extraneous information to sway opinion.

[user1485342611]

Seems to have been fault on both sides. A staff member should have been keeping an eye on things and intervened when the child started running around and playing with valuable display work.
Likewise the mother should have been making sure her 5 year old was within her sight and she knew what he was doing.
I think the mother should probably have to pay something towards the cost, but not the full amount.

[Elementally]

The venue should have had insurance against this kind of thing happening. It is always a risk to put a valuable work of art on public display.

I don't think it's appropriate to sue. A child is not a possession like a dog that you have a duty to control. The mother has a responsibility to care for the wellbeing of the child. In my opinion that does not extend to making sure the child does not break things.

[ArmySal]

In my opinion that does not extend to making sure the child does not break things.

Just give 'em free rein, eh?

[PinkSparklyPussyCat]

The mother. She should have been keeping an eye on her child.

A child is not a possession like a dog that you have a duty to control. The mother has a responsibility to care for the wellbeing of the child. In my opinion that does not extend to making sure the child does not break things.

No, she should have been keeping an eye on him and teaching him he can't do what he wants all the time. Would you be happy for a friend's child to break things in your house?

[witchofzog]

Sue was probably the wrong word. I disagree with the mother not having responsibility to ensure her child does not break something. Of course she does! She should have been watching him even if from the other side of the room.

[Hundredacrewoods]

Surely all parents have had a child do something unexpected or naughty even when supervised. Are we saying that if you can't afford to potentially be sued for hundreds of thousands, you can't afford to leave the house?

[SoddingUnicorns]

She states the art work should have been secured better and her son was just being a 5 year old

One of those mothers who thinks her little darling can do as they please. She wasn’t watching him, and he caused $132000 of damage, therefore she’s liable.

[KittyHawke80]

If she’d been standing right beside him, one does rather hope it wouldn’t have happened at all, supervision being the crux of all this. That’d be some way beyond parental indulgence.

[PinkSparklyPussyCat]

I didn't realise the kid was 5! Definitely old enough to be told he can't do what he likes.

[ICantBelieveIDidThis]

The mother is being unreasonable.

Knowing there were valuable works of art around the venue, she let junior run around unsupervised.

You break it, you own it.

[KittyHawke80]

That’s emphatically not a mother’s only responsibility! To make sure no harm comes to her child, and everyone and everything else can go hang? What a ludicrous statement.