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?

She should've been watching him more closely, in fact he should've been sat beside her, that where my child would be in the same situation, but how irresponsible for the venue to have stuff that's that expensive just sitting loose where anyone could trip over and nudge it at any point!

I mean if this was a museum, the stuff would've been more protected the venue are to blame as well not just the kids mother

but equally I'm having trouble believing the thing was worth as much as the artist is claiming.

Have as much trouble as you like, art is art & half of it is crap - doesn't stop it being worth loads though....

Sorry this is nonsense. Many home insurance policies provide cover against the legal fees if you get sued. Not the actual amount to pay if you are found to have been at fault. And often the legal fees are no longer covered if it's found you were negligent. Why would any insurer provide cover for your liabilities if you've done something wrong?

Here you go Einstein.....

Nationwide Insurance

Key line being - "coverage for accidental damage you are legally responsible for on someone else’s property."

Our house insurance has liability cover and accidental damage cover for us. Mostly because my SIL is a dick who sues everyone for free money

If you see the video it seems a couple of kids are running around unattended. Weird if you ask me, but if it’s a wedding and kids were invited and they are allowed to stroll around while the grown ups chat, how else do you keep your kids from being bored? Maybe it shouldn’t have been the right place for kids? Maybe a few other people are in the wrong here? What are kids expects to do just stand next to heir parents for a few hours? It’s a tough one I think. No idea who I think should pay. If pushed I’d suggest the community centre where the wedding was held. They had a job of keeping the statue or piece of art safe and secured, if it was standing vulnerable they should have told the wedding party to be aware of a valuable piece of art that could be knocked over. Just my opinion.

What are kids expects to do just stand next to heir parents for a few hours?

Or maybe parents could keep their kids in their line of sight, like I did with my kids when they were small & somewhere that wasn't mine.....

Why would any insurer provide cover for your liabilities if you've done something wrong?

Why would any insurer provide cover for you driving into another car?

She's in America. Home Owners insurance is differnt over there and, from what I can gather, it's a discussion between insurance companies.

But ye gods! Who wouldn't keep a 5 year old close to hand under those circumstances?

8 pages!!! I missed 8 pages!

Apologies if I have just blithely repeated what about 100 other posts have already said

Personally I think both

The venue should have secured the item better. Why is a 5 year old able to knock it over? That could have killed him

Saying that though, the mother should have been keeping on eye on her child too

Both are unreasonable. She should have been keeping an eye, but there should also be a liability insurance in place as these things do happen.

Sounds like the venue's insurance company is trying it on.

Key line being - "coverage for accidental damage you are legally responsible for on someone else’s property."

Key word being accidental. Not negligent.

In this case, as there is a discussion of whether the parents were adequately supervising, it looks like the venue has to prove negligence in order to get the parents to pay. So an insurance policy covering accidental damage wouldn't apply.

So an insurance policy covering accidental damage wouldn't apply.

I'm going to say "Bollocks" to you again I'm afraid. It would appear that the Venue are of the belief that they can claim it on her insurance, so lets leave it to the people that know eh?

Keep grasping at straws to try & make a non point though, it's very endearing.

The City council(?) said that they have a legal obligation to try and claim from the other party's insurance. So it really is SOP, not anything unusual.

And the kids, there were 2, didn't bump into it or tyr to hug it. They stood on the base and reached up to it... it was taller than they were. Then one kid reached and grabbed at it, it fell off. It wasn't a light touch it was quite a concerted effort - which had they been suprevised wouldn't have happened.

Gosh. I may be wrong (I don't think I am) but at least I'm not incredibly rude.

And it didn't look all that heavy, just too high for the kid to push back on, it folded as it hit the ground, rather than smash.

I work in the cultural sector. I think it is rediculous to say that anything valuable should be in a case. Imagine if a Picasso painting was behind plexi glass? It would totally spoil the viewing experience. The painting could be damage but there is a trust placed in visitors. The parents sound like selfish areseholes! Like why should I watch my child in a gallery space! This sort of thing really annoys me. It is representative of so much that is wrong with society. They don't want to take any personal responsibility. Urgh

"I know the women sitting there wasn't the mum but the way they sat there when clearly the statue made a loud crash is lazy too not to see what is going on."

They didnt choose to have the child though. Not their problem.

Venue should have suitable event insurance.

Don’t know what American home insurances policies are like (although none of us do I guess)

I do.

It likely would not have been covered under her homeowner's policy. If she was smart, she would have had an umbrella liability policy, which does cover property damage and lawsuits. Her role and possible negligence is a factor solicitors at the two insurance companies would have had to negotiate, but her insurer would defend against the claim.

If you have any assets to speak of you'd be a fool not to have this coverage in the US. It's also cheap. I have $2,000,000 worth and it costs me about $400 per year.

65% of Americans rent their homes so are especially unlikely to have any type of home insurance.

Insurance companies always look to subrogate (get other parties to pay out in the case of a claim on their policy) wherever they think it may be possible. It keeps their costs down and also helps their clients (because they have a lower claim history as a result so their premiums don't increase as much).

In this case the ciy's insurance company are pursuing the parents of the child that caused the damage. They may also be pursuing the wedding hosts (some venues require that anyone who books their rooms has insurance, although it's often just pubic liability insurance to make sure if anyone is hurt the venue's insurers don't have to pay).

If the parents are covered by an insurance company themselves then their insurers will have advised them not to accept liability. Interesting that the police were called, I think from that linked report it's quite likely that the parents will counterclaim. The police account is pretty neutral:

'"The involved child stops in front of the statue and then reaches up, grabbing part of the statue and pulling on it," the report said. "A moment later, the upper portion of the statue starts to topple forward. The child tries to catch it but he cannot. The top of the statue falls to the ground, breaking in several locations."

It seems from the video that both boys (the family are said to have four children but I don't know if the boys in the video are brothers) were behaving badly and were not closely supervised, however the statue fell very quickly so probably was inadequately secured. Plus the valuation seems a bit suspect. I'd expect that the artist will be paid significantly less than he is claiming for and that the cost will be split between the insurance companies.

So if he was watching him and he had damaged something , would she be let off ? I doubt it