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?

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

This is almost exactly backwards. 64% of housing in the US is owner occupied.

Home Ownership in the US

oops... blame the wine.

Even so, lots don't own home. I found 63% home ownership rate for Kansas city.

doesn't stop it being worth loads though....

Depends who's valuing it...

doesn't stop it being worth loads though....

And who's willing to buy it...

The value of the piece was set by the artist. I'm sure any insurance payout would depend on an independent appraisal and the prices he sold similar pieces for previously.

The venue are not suing the parents - the insurers will have paid out but be trying to claim back money from the parents.

The news said the area with the exhibits was closed off. It looks like it is open but is separate from the wedding venue (that is in a room down the corridor). It may be they had to walk past the art to enter and leave the building, but the parents would have known it was there and should have made sure.

It is not as though the art was in the same room as the wedding and it was accidental. The children left the wedding venue and caused deliberate damage elsewhere in the building.

The parents should have been supervising their children, so they are at fault. The sculpture is made of glass and mirror, so they are very lucky their child was not more seriously cut and injured having the sculpture break on him as it fell.

The mother. I hope she is forced to pay and doesn't get out of it. It's not just kids being kids. She should have been watching her child.

After watching the video I would say the venue is.

Yes there an argument she could have been supervising him better but this was a venue which hired itself out for a wedding reception. So they were there at a wedding reception, not having gone to a museum/gallery. I do think that generally there’s an expectation at a private party/venue kids will play more/be less supervised than at a gallery visit.

I think the venue should have secured the piece better. Imagine if if the kid had been seriously injured? Yes. The venue would be facing one hell of a law suit for having an unsecured item which was allowed to topple on the kid. The venue ought to be glad the parents haven’t decided the kid has muscle/sort tissue injury and aren’t suing the arse off them.

Bit of both really. The mother should have been supervising but if she was at a wedding reception at a leisure centre I don't think it's unreasonable for her to have been chatting to another guest for a few minutes. I wouldn't expect there to be valuable art a leisure centre!

The parents. They were both there. Anyone saying it's only the woman's fault, could you add why the father should bear no responsibility for his children?

Oh Brenda, come on! He's a man you silly. He'd have been doing the important man stuff like drinking and chatting networking that men do at wedding receptions whilst the little woman takes care of the kids. Women are just so more responsible for that sort of thing. Ovaries.

I think plenty of us if we were faced with that sort of bill we might try and minimise blame.

She was in the wrong but I do have to wonder if a wedding venue that lets children inside is the right place for expensive uncased statues.

The sculpture was terrible. The so-called valuation is a joke.

It’s a mad valuation. If someone did that where I worked my insurance would pay for it. And we would be in trouble for not securing it.
You have to have all types of insurance including indemnity I’m case your stupid sculpture falls on someone and kills them. It’s your fault for not securing it properly.
Were there no touch signs and barriers? Had they taken due care to protect the ugly thing?