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?

Also, is the mother a millionaire? Because if not PP's are being very blasé about expecting her to pay for something that the vast majority of people could simply never afford. It's bizarre that the museum are even suing her (unless they know that she has the finances for it)

A pp said they're asking her insurance company to meet the cost.

I think both. The display should be safe. Children DO run around at weddings and always have done for as long as I can remember. But the mother should have been a keeping a closer eye on him.

Sorry don't know where I got 'wedding' from!lol! But I will say, children DO run around and mess with things. It is the installers responsibility to make sure the display is safe.

I would guess she'll counter sue (she has to really or unless she is super rich and the money doesn't matter).

Venue allows children in but serious risk by not securing art that could fall on a child and hurt them. I've never heard of a museum or gallery not protect the things there from being damaged or knocked over. An adult could have slipped and fallen into it, it wasn't secured. No one would comment then because there would be no opportunity to comment on a parent, or a child.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a museum or gallery to take basic care to ensure things aren't easily knocked over or damaged.

The kid is just a kid and she was only two minutes away, she could have been right next to him with but looking at something else and he still could have done this.

It's the venue's responsibility, without question. Yes, obviously the behaviour is annoying and the parenting a bit slack, but the venue absolutely has a responsibility to display artwork in such a way that this can't happen. I run an arts venue and my first concern would be (a) to the public, to ensure that no one can be physically hurt by falling artwork and (b) to the artist, to ensure that their work isn't damaged while under my supervision. I would accomplish that by installing the artwork more solidly than this, and also by invigilating more closely than this venue seems to be doing. There are psychological prompts you can use, like signs and cordons, but you don't rely on those. I am also insured both in relation to any injury to the public and any damage to the art. Undoubtedly this venue is too. I think their insurer is taking a punt on trying to recoup their loss from the mother, or perhaps the insurer has withheld some of the insured sum from the venue in recognition of their contributory negligence (i.e. not securing the piece properly) and the venue is trying it on to recoup that proportion. Someone fucked up much more than the mother, imo. If this is America there will probably be a counter-suit in relation to the distress caused to the traumatised child next anyway, at which point everyone will back off and settle.

x-post Lu!

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a museum or gallery to take basic care to ensure things aren't easily knocked over or damaged.

I believe the venue did take reasonable care, it took a lot of effort for it to fall

there is a big difference between a person of any age stumbling against something and a person of any age climbing up and deliberately manhandling it.

A kid isn't being malicious or deliberately misbehaving, they run around and explore.

Plus manhandling art, that sound like something a precious artist would say! I wonder who exactly valued this random thing? Seems a bit pricy!

I wonder how they valued it so highly

I was wondering that too. Apparently the local artist said it was worth that much—I’d be looking at this more closely if I were the insurance company of the family. Did the artist sell something similar for that price? How did he come up with that estimate.

Sounds way over-inflated to me, I think the artist is being dodgy here.

Plus manhandling art, that sound like something a precious artist would say!

how would you describe climbing up on a plinth and grabbing a statue then?

A kid isn't being malicious or deliberately misbehaving, they run around and explore.

So you supervise them in this kind of environment. It’s not the place for running round and exploring # there was very clearly art on display.

The artist has not sold work at that price. Previous sales are in the 3 or 4 figure range. He's trying it on.
In the UK the venue would be held responsible, no question.

Surely in law the venue have liability (or vicarious liability) - ok so the boy was being a little so and so and the mum should have been near him, but accidents happen and thats what you have insurance for - public liability etc.

So why are they suing her? I suppose because they can?

Just watched the video. It didnt take that much effort to make it fall. Venue was bloody lucky he wasnt injured. Lots if sculpture is tactile, some is even designed to be touched/stroked/caressed/interacted with, so you know there's a chance people will touch it. This was hardly well secured.

And yes the parents should have been watching the boys but it took seconds.

They are both at fault (Mother and Venue) and this is why its going to court - for the relevant insurance companies to sort out who pays what.
The Object should obviously have been better protected - complete with a ban on unsupervised children, and signs to this effect, if necessary. Although if a 5 year old could push it over an adult could trip and knock it.
The mother should have been supervising her child, but at a wedding my children often wandered off - being 'supervised" by other adults around. They never knocked expensive sculptures over, but have asked strangers to lift them on and off of bouncy castles.

The mother should be liable as the child was clearly determined to pull the statue off its plinth. It's not an accident. The item looks very heavy, the plinth was against the wall, not in the middle of the room, and looks like someone 'bumping into' it wouldn't make it fall. The mother would be quick enough to sue if the little darling had been hurt. You would think though that staff would keep an eye on things when artworks are on open display.

A child is not a possession like a dog that you have a duty to control

You absolutely do have a duty to control your child. Dog like or not dog like.

The following is a good article on this, less sensationalised than in other media outlets. Sorry, not certain how to do clicky links on here.

www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article213160979.html

The husband was there also, so why all the focus on the mum being negligent?

The $132,000 is the artist taking the piss IMHO by estimating the value of his own work which I gather failed to sell. An artist's work is only as valuable as what buyers are willing to pay for it and this artist has little to no sale history to back up his own valuation.

The venue nor the artist thought it valuable enough before the incident to put in place protection for the piece. I smell opportunism.

The vitriol on here is worse because of the mention of $132,000, doubt it anyone would give a shit if it was a cheap vase.

A lot of hypocrisy too because there is no child ever who has never broken anything or had an accident through childish ignorance or naughtiness.

...but the child's mother is a woman so rip her pieces absolving all the men involved of any responsibility for poor decision making.

The mother.

However, I feel like - depending on the venue - she couldn't be expected to know or assume in good conscience that the pieces were this expensive.

There's also the aspect of certain venues needing to anticipate the presence of children.

Yes, she left him alone. But this could have happened in 10 unsupervised seconds...

I also think they are both liable. The venue should definitely have secured the art work but at the same time the mother was grossly negligent. It wasn't like a previous posters experience where he accidentally nudged the statue. He was climbing the plinth for a while and it took the mother 2 MINUTES to realise. However at the same time the money is excessive

it wasn't an accident though was it, the child was trying to climb/pulling on it.

if the child had tripped or even ran an triped and knocked it over then inwould agree the mother shouldn't pay but She let them run ahead knowing that they where touching etc because inwould bet my life this was the only thing they where trying to get hold of or touch.

Really depends on how exactly this piece was presented and whether it was a more or less child friendly venue imo.

Most of the vitriol on here is hypocrisy. Who are these people who take their children to social events - weddings, bbqs, fetes, garden parties etc - and don't take their eyes off their 5 year olds for 2 minutes?

The mother is at fault 100% (Unless his Dad was there too then it’s both him and the Mum)

It wasn’t a little nudge that toppled the statue it was pulled over.

BTW - it was so ridiculous that I wondered if this was a set up. 🤷🏻‍♀️