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?

Parents are responsible, should have been supervising son BUT venue also responsible for not securing the statue so the accident was able to occur. About quits I'd say with onus on venues insurers to pay up. Lucky mum isn't suing them.

Clearly he did it on purpose. Goofing around. But how many of us can honestly claim that we have eyes on our kids every minute we're at an event with them?

The venue should have secured the art more carefully, and put cordons up to stop people touching it. Not hard at all.

I think the price sounds bonkers, if it had a 'sold' sticker on it for that price then fair enough, or if the artists works are known to sell for that much. The centres insurance company is just trying to get out of paying. Lucky the child wasn't hurt, it looks heavy.

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?

If I had a 5 year old like that I wouldn’t take my eyes of him. You wouldn’t be able to trust him. There are loads of situations where you have to continually watch kids that age -eg cliff tops, open water, busy roads. It does depend on the kid but I can confidently say I would let a bouncy 5 year old wonder off in an art gallery even if it was just a few minutes.

I've always watched my very small children like a hawk whenever they've been in someone else's house/public building. Common sense and all..

You follow your 5 year old round at other people's house do you?

Mother totally to blame. Little brat climbed onto the statue and then pulled at it. Have his parents not taught him not to go around climbing and touching everything? At 5 he is old enough to know that is wrong.

The last time I went to the British Museum I was shocked at just how many children were touching exhibits even though there were notices asking people not to. Even when the parents could see them doing it, in almost every case nothing was said.

So many parents let their children do exactly what they like. Running round supermarkets (even seen a few children on scooters in supermarkets), running round restaurants and cafes (so easy to cause an accident when people are carrying food and hot drinks).

Ooh err! I'd be horrified if I were the mother. If the statue is really worth that much why was it not protected?

Of course the child shouldn't have been running around unattended but this is what happens with five year-olds. A friend has a statue in her garden which got a very large crack in it after a visit by American family - it was too heavy to have been replaced by a child so the parents must have helped in the 'subterfuge'. Not a word of apology.

They don't have free rein, no. At 5 though I could have trusted my eldest to not grab anything she wasn't supposed to, so I wouldn't have needed to watch her like a hawk.

Our wedding venue had works of art on the wall. We had to sign a waiver that if anything got damaged we would pay for it! I’m surprised the bride and groom didn’t have to sign anything (not that I think they should pay btw) Maybe the woman should pay the excess in their insurance but not the whole amount.

"...if had been properly secured, it wouldn't have toppled off."
Have you actually been to a museum or art gallery? Vases, for example, are not 'secured' (how would you secure a vase anyway?), and very rarely they get smashed:
www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/feb/06/arts.artsnews1

But at least in that case, the chap fell, rather than, for example, a boisterous five year old who had decided to climb up on the window sill. In your own home, with your own objects, you can secure or tie down things as you will. But in a space like the one shown (not a totally unsupervised public space where you might expect kids -- the naughty ones anyway and even some adults to clamber on statues), you expect unsupervised kids to know the difference between:
a) furniture
b) play objects
c) decorative objects
or they are not fit to be left unsupervised.

So, just as I'd not chide a kitten for climbing up the curtains, but I'd expect a child to be old enough to not do so, so I'd expect a child to know not to climb up on this object. If they don't know that, they either need to be supervised, or taught the differences as above.

And of course, we all have plenty of experience of seeing kids in public spaces, where in full view of their parents (or even with the parents themselves joining in), keep off, do not cross this rope etc signs have been ignored. Including one sad case in Norway where parents disobeyed a clear 'no closer to the glacier' barriers etc

www.thelocal.no/20140811/tourists-die-in-norway-glacier-tragedy

You cannot make everywhere safe, you cannot secure all artworks (apart from keeping everything behind bullet-proof glass and everyone six feet away -- or better still, don't display them at all!). I don't know how anyone expects someone to 'secure' a vase, or a sculpture. Apart from having a 'do not climb on the exhibits' sign, or expected parents to be responsible, what more do you expect? If it is an area that children do not enter unaccompanied (unlike, say, a park or public square), then I would expect a reasonable standard of supervision or behaviour. And that you deal with the consequences if your lack of supervision causes damage.

If it could have happened even with her supervising to an appropriate level (eg watching him from across the room) then the venue IBU.

If it could absolutely not have happened if she'd been watching him (i.e. it took a lengthy and determined effort for him to get to it and break it) then she IBU.

I don't supervise my 5 yr old at all times but in a place with fragile or valuable stuff and which has not been child proofed (ie not a fellow parent's home) I watch her very closely indeed.

but this wasn't a house or wedding or some ones house, they knew what their child was like and still allowed them to run wild.

accidents happen but as parents we need to try and limit them.

in a place like that iv never let my child run a head due to the possibility if them a getting lost/hurt or touching things and imo at 5 they should know better then to be climbing things in a museum, the parents obviously havnt installed that in them so it's the parents fault.

The last time I went to the British Museum I was shocked at just how many children were touching exhibits even though there were notices asking people not to. Even when the parents could see them doing it, in almost every case nothing was said.

YES! This exactly! Don't touch the exhibits, stay behind the rope, don't throw food/stones at the chimps/gorillas, don't chase the pigeons. And sometimes the adults join in!

The mum is being unreasonable.

don't chase the pigeons ?

The mother, but if she doesn't have the money and their insurance wouldn't cover it then they're out of luck.

If I was having my wedding at a place with art work on display it would definitely be a no kids wedding and probably light on the alcohol too.

It reminds me of the case where a mother didn’t watch her child and a gorilla had to be destroyed.

Mother is BU.

It annoys me when children run up and bother pigeons, but I know a lot of parents think "it's just kids being kids".

It only took seconds for that child to knock over that sculpture. I don't believe at all that all the people blaming the parent haven't had their children out of their sight for a few seconds. I mean seriously, we all take our kids out and sit and chat with other parents, or talk to a shop assistant, or look at something and haven't seen our child for a few seconds. If the mum had been the woman on the sofa, the accident would still have happened (as the child appeared to be obscured behind something else). We have all done that, sat and chatted whilst our children are together in what we think is a safe place. If you are open to young children, as that venue clearly was, you need to make sure delicate, breakable objects can't be knocked over and broken in a few seconds by a young child.

Lazy parenting. The mother is totally to blame. A responsible parent supervises their children.

There are loads of situations where you have to continually watch kids that age -eg cliff tops, open water, busy roads.

Yes because those places are exactly the same as a leisure centre.

It does depend on the kid but I can confidently say I would let a bouncy 5 year old wonder off in an art gallery even if it was just a few minutes.

It was a leisure centre, not an art gallery.

I came on here expecting to say it was the venue's fault.

But having seen that video, those kids weren't being supervised adequately.

Her insurance should pay up - it's why we have liability insurance FGS.

Her premiums may go up a smidge, but hopefully she'll be a bit more responsible in the future....

As I used to tell DS 'you look with your eyes not your hands!'. He was reminded not to touch things, especially in shops, museums or other peoples homes.

The scratchy video looked like this child climbed up on the artwork, and that there weren't adults all that close.

The mum's insurance will negotiate something with the city's insurance company.

The mum sat there totally oblivious while her 5 year old climbed up the statue. If one of my kids breaks a vase in a pottery shop, guess who has to pay for it.

To those saying the mothers insurance will pay- what kind of insurance would the mother have that would cover this? It’s wouldn't be a standard insurance. And as another poster said the mother isn’t going to have £132k plus legal bills to deal with this