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?

Just watching her interview on This Morning now. Absolutely the mother is BU, she was not supervising her child at all.

The mother didn't give 2 shits what mayhem her kids were getting up to, and they were really disruptive mischievous boys.

That said, if the place in question had a $132,000 statue in a public place where people were walking, and kids running around, and it wasn't secured or in a glass case or anything, then they can hardly be surprised when it gets damaged.

The mother is an irresponsible silly woman IMO, but she shouldn't have to pay for the damages. (IMO.) Not sure how they can get her to pay for it, if she hasn't got the money. Or even if they are entitled to make her pay it. Things/rules/laws are different in the USA, so I can't say what will - or should - happen.

I don't envy her though, being in the position she is in now.

The children seem to be outside the actual wedding venue/room and the boy seems to climb up on the plinth, not just knock the statue over.

Yes, she was unreasonable but we don't fix unreasonable mothering in court rooms. As much as that would invigorate aibu.

The venue mostly, if it is that valuable it should be cordoned off, or in a display case etc. Secured somehow.

The mother should have been supervising more closely yes, but shit happens, if had been properly secured, it wouldn't have toppled off.

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.

From the point of view of the venue protecting their assets it is neither here nor there, because they can't guarantee all members of the public behaving responsibly, which is why most places would secure it.

Her parenting is a separate issue to whether the venue were unreasonable or not.

If she’d been in a shop and not watching her kid and he’d smashed something, she’d have had to pay for it.

This is just a very expensive lesson in not being a bone idle parent.

She was unreasonable of course. That doesn't make her liable. It would be normal for such a venue to require hirers to take out insurance against damage to the artworks.

Both at fault. A heavy piece like that is potentially dangerous, so should be well secured, not easily pull over-able. If the boy had been badly injured then the venue would have been paying out.
That said, the children in the vid should have been supervised.

We had a similar situation some years ago in France when DD (then about 8) broke a small statue in an art exhibition . She was right with us, and not touching, but stepped backwards, bumped into plinth and it toppled off!
Holiday insurance coughed up, luckily!

I do think the venue should have had somebody keeping an eye on the area - not excusing the irresponsible mother, as I said before.

But I am fed up of restaurants, libraries and other public places allowing kids to create a racket and disturb other users/customers and doing absolutely nothing about it. Years ago there is no way a child would have been allowed run around a library shouting or scoot around a museum. A staff member would have intervened immediately.

Nowadays, no one does anything and therefore we are all at the mercy of the minority of parents who just will not supervise or control or say 'no to their children.

Just to add that this sort of parent's children do smash things, damage things etc in shops, cafes and hotels all the time and then the parents are aggressive and hostile when challenged. One of my uni mates is like this with her children, we don't see see them after her DD threw a bowl of noddles across a Waggamammas which hit a young mans laptop. The mother immediately became aggressive screaming that only an 'idiot' would open a laptop where people were eating/drinking etc. It was mortifying, we apologised for her behaviour, left and haven't seen them again. I have heard of LOTS of incidents thou - pulling emergency cords on the tube, damaging a very expensive dress with chewing gum in a boutique, weeing into a ball pool at a play event so it had to be shut down, stealing from friends etc etc. They just do not care how horribly they behave and defend them - even violence towards much younger children. They think it is gentle parenting - I think it is a form of child neglect.

Here's another video:

It looks like the child was having a wrestling match with the sculpture.

The Mother was not expecting anything bad to happen furthermore to have your 5 year old out of site for longer than 20 seconds is ridiculous, shes lucky it was something he damaged and not that he was kidnapped. count your lucky stars its just money your paying back on more than likely a monthly plan. Because if he managed to do all of that and she then arrived back two minutes after the damage had been done im guessing she was gone 4-5 minutes in which thats all it takes for someone to take your child into their own hands.

The venue is at fault. Its a leisure centre, so there are bound to be children of all ages in there.

Yes the mother should have been supervising, but who watches their 5 year old every second when they are playing with a friend in a regularly frequested normally safe place?

It looks to me like he fell and nudged the plinth and it started to fall and he was not able to push it back up, so it couldn't have been secured on the plinth at all. It does not look like he pulled it off deliberately.

Sometimes even the best behaved 5 year old will do something silly or run around when they shouldn't, especially when playing with their friends and getting carried away. The venue should not have had works of art of this value unsecured in the lobby of a leisure centre where kids are guaranteed to be.

I think the lesiure centre need to put this down as a learning experience instead of trying to blame a small child.

Nowadays, no one does anything and therefore we are all at the mercy of the minority of parents who just will not supervise or control or say 'no to their children.

I just don't see this often in day to day life. I think most kids are well supervised most of the time.

From another article I read, the valuation is coming from a local Kansas City-based artist, who estimated that the piece is worth that much if he sold it.

I’d be suspicious of that figure, sounds way inflated and the insurance company of the family should look into that. How much is his labor + materials actually worth? Has he sold something similar and how much did he sell it for? This would be a more fruitful line of attack for the family in question.

furthermore to have your 5 year old out of site for longer than 20 seconds is ridiculous, shes lucky it was something he damaged and not that he was kidnapped.

Kidnapped? Really?

Shush Pineapple - don't tell everyone. I'm setting up a line of precariously balanced expensive 'art' in the US. Do you want in?

Elementtree

The venue should have insured the works of art.

Of course she is; allowing her child to "play" around expensive works of art. She probably lets him scooter round museums as well, because he's five...
Daft mare.

That second video shows that he was messing about with the statue, he didn’t just knock it he was rocking it whilst standing on the base of the plinth!

Looks to me the kid was touching the statue's boobs!

And the mother is at fault, if the kids are likely to be climbing on statues you supervise them

The venue should have insured the works of art.

Someone up thread said it’s the insurance company who are trying to recoup the costs from the mother/her insurance company,

kid supervision means no peace and quiet for several years and always being on call unless child is asleep or someone else is. It will be hard work and boring at times.

condoms are available should anyone not wish to take this on.

no sympathy at all.