Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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?

214 replies

witchofzog · 20/06/2018 11:10

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?

OP posts:
LaurieMarlow · 20/06/2018 11:26

The venue is batshit for not protecting its assets better. Surely something like this was bound to happen and the proximity/level of supervision of the mother is neither here nor there.

steff13 · 20/06/2018 11:27

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.

They do. It's their insurance company that's suing her.

The artwork was a sculpture on a base. The video shows him trying to climb the base for several seconds before it fell over. I think she should have been watching him; the venue isn't at fault.

If they were there for a wedding, I wonder why the B&G aren't being chased for the damages. It's not their fault, of course, but surely it's part of the contract that they're liable for damages caused by their guests.

SoddingUnicorns · 20/06/2018 11:27

Surely something like this was bound to happen and the proximity/level of supervision of the mother is neither here nor there

Supervision/proximity isn’t “neither here nor there” it’s the reason the artwork was damaged!

Elementtree · 20/06/2018 11:27

There's a moral imperative to rein your kid in and if you are neglecting to care for your child then the state will step in. But that has nothing to do with the business who is seeking damages. You can run a business model where you cross your fingers, allow kids into a venue, not secure your art and hope kids don't ruin shit and then seek damages from the parent.

Otherwise I could open my own art show with my own shitty art efforts and slap on exorbitant price tag and then I could stick it in a soft play and wait for the damages to roll in.

Omzlas · 20/06/2018 11:28

The mother - she wasn't supervising her child as she should have been.
What if the statue had fallen the other way and fallen ON HIM? She'd be straight on the compo face and claiming for damages etc

pebkac · 20/06/2018 11:28

The surveillance tape in link below.

Didn't take her 2 minutes to attend. The sculpture may have made a crunching noise not a smash?

I also think the sculpture should have been secured to the plinth better and a serious injury to the child was luckily averted.

In these circumstances, I would have 'cased out' the display myself with them beforehand, and warned not to touch what I couldnt trust. Also do this at galleries and museums for exhibits, whether behind velvet ropes or not.

ArmySal · 20/06/2018 11:29

the proximity/level of supervision of the mother is neither here nor there.

It really is, the boy grabs it and rocks it (it's very heavy) and it teeters for some moments. It certainly looks heavy enough to have killed him if it landed on his head. Irresponsible parenting.

shiklah · 20/06/2018 11:29

I have seen the video and heard the case described centre owner, mother and artist. The mother was neglectful and her lack of concern for the damage and dismissal of the centre and the artists concerns and lack of any apology have resulted in legal action.

SD1978 · 20/06/2018 11:30

He’s 5- if by 5 your child still hadn’t learned how to behave in different places appropriately- Park- climb things. Art gallery, don’t climb things, then she should have been actively supervising him. He didn’t just brush past it. He climbed it, hugged it, pulled it over. If she didn’t think that the venue was suitable for her child, then she should have declined the invite or actually been watching him. 100% her fault.

steff13 · 20/06/2018 11:31

Didn't take her 2 minutes to attend.

The woman sitting on the couch who walks up the mother. The mother isn't in that video.

dadshere · 20/06/2018 11:31

The mum was not supervising her child, she is at fault. The 'art' was junk and worth $5 in my opinion.

Elementally · 20/06/2018 11:32

If that statue had landed in the boy and injured him then I suspect the venue owners would have been in deep trouble.

steff13 · 20/06/2018 11:32

The woman in the couch is not the mother, that should say.

Elementtree · 20/06/2018 11:32

Yes but the business had a contractual obligation with the insurance company to protect their shit. They cannot simply hope that their unsecured statues don't fall down.

I'm not saying it wasn't shitty parenting.

DisturblinglyOrangeScrambleEgg · 20/06/2018 11:32

I think it's a group effort - personally I'm surprised that the insurers aren't rather upset with the venue for not securing the piece better - especially given it was in public, in a public place - anyone could have bumped into it by accident and had it fall on them.

It's downright dangerous to have heavy objects, on high plinths unsecured.

But yes, the child should also have been supervised - a belts and braces approach I would say would be prudent from all sides.

steff13 · 20/06/2018 11:34

Yes but the business had a contractual obligation with the insurance company to protect their shit. They cannot simply hope that their unsecured statues don't fall down.

It didn't fall down. It was perfectly steady and secure until it was knocked down.

RavenWings · 20/06/2018 11:34

She is, 100%. Should have been supervising her kid instead of letting him swing out of exhibits in there. If it had fallen on him I'm sure she'd be looking for compensation and costs covered.

user1485342611 · 20/06/2018 11:35

There seems to have been two kids running around the place playing and no staff member around at all. That doesn't excuse the mother but the venue were very careless as well.

SoupDragon · 20/06/2018 11:36

The parents are absolutely liable IMO.

Was it just the mother there?

thecatsthecats · 20/06/2018 11:37

Playing devil's advocate here, but it is quite surprising that a venue allowed an artwork of such high value to be positioned so that a kid -or anything - could knock it and damage it.

I would expect at least a warning on entry that children must be supervised at all times, as typically museums either have security/screens etc, or are explicit about the conditions of looking around when you enter.

cadburyegg · 20/06/2018 11:37

They are both unreasonable.

After watching the video its clear that the mother wasn't supervising him.

The venue should have taken better precautions against this kind of thing happening. Particularly if its a wedding venue

BarbarianMum · 20/06/2018 11:39

So if it's a wedding venue were they there attending a wedding? Because Id say it's quite normal for groups of loosely supervised children to be running round at wedding venues.

LayOfTheLand · 20/06/2018 11:39

I would say clearly the venue. Although the mother clearly has some responsibility, the venue is being completely unreasonable and should either protected or installed the artwork better.

BarbarianMum · 20/06/2018 11:40

wedding venues during the reception.

Elementtree · 20/06/2018 11:40

But if the kid had say, fallen into it, under the careful eye of his mother, then I think the consensus would be that the business was at fault.

The business was remiss in not securing a pieces of work worth a fortune. Where's the risk assessment here? That's their job, not the mothers with regard to the insurance company.