It's not my kids fault!!!!

[mepstein]

Community center, not art gallery. Kid is part of the community and doesn’t know the difference between $132K statue and statue at the park. If I had a $132k item at a public area, I’d at least rope it off or secure somehow.

[Alansglide]

It's the parents fault. You take your kids to a public building you're responsible for their actions.

[BeyGon]

Looking at the walls and pedestals in the room, I see it as an art gallery, IN a community center. maintain your children. or pay.

[WPOZZZ]

Originally Posted by Norm K

Would've been a lot more complicated had the child been damaged along with the bust.

_

Yup. Waiting for the parents to sue because the kid got hurt. Statue should have been secured to the base, or roped off. It is an attractive nuisance and the operators of the venue should have taken it into account. Child is now traumatized and wont drink or eat from fragile dishes/glasses. He is also scared of statues.

[A930Rocket]

If the parents aren't even on the room, it's worse than I thought.

Where are they?

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

I don't think the people on the couch are the parents.

[Baz]

Originally Posted by WPOZZZ

Yup. Waiting for the parents to sue because the kid got hurt. Statue should have been secured to the base, or roped off. It is an attractive nuisance and the operators of the venue should have taken it into account. Child is now traumatized and wont drink or eat from fragile dishes/glasses. He is also scared of statues.

You say that in green font but if you read the article....the parents were already claiming the kid was traumatized plus had physical injuries.

[WPOZZZ]

Originally Posted by Baz

You say that in green font but if you read the article....the parents were already claiming the kid was traumatized plus had physical injuries.

I don't see that in the article. The only thing I saw was the mother said the statue should have been protected better.

A city in Kansas is reportedly demanding $132,000 from the parents of a 5-year-old boy who knocked over a glass sculpture.

The piece of art, “Aphrodite di Kansas City,” was on display at an Overland Park community center when the boy damaged it on May 19, the Kansas City Star reported. He was attending a wedding reception with his parents at the time.

“He probably hugged it,” the boy’s mother Sarah Goodman told the paper. “Maybe my son hugged a torso because he’s a loving, sweet nice boy who just graduated from preschool.”

Overland Park’s insurance company sent a letter accusing Goodman and her husband of negligence for failing to keep an eye on the boy, the paper reported.

“I don’t want to diminish the value of their art, but I can’t pay for that,” Goodman told the paper.

She said her son didn’t damage the sculpture on purpose. She also said the city should have protected it better.

Kansas City artist Bill Lyons created the sculpture. He told the paper it was uninsured and damaged beyond repair.

"I want to be reimbursed for the amount of time that I spent on it and for what I think it is worth," he said.

Goodman said that she has presented the bill to her insurance company to resolve, according to the paper.

[Baz]

Originally Posted by WPOZZZ

I don't see that in the article. The only thing I saw was the mother said the statue should have been protected better.

Sorry Bryan, I thought I was looking at the same article but I guess not.

Check it out:

According to a police report, several officers were called to the community that evening about a "disturbance." One officer said he met with Goodman in the parking lot, and she said her child had injuries to his face and went through a traumatic experience. The officer told Goodman it was a civil matter and watched security video of the incident.

[scottmandue]

Originally Posted by BeyGon

Looking at the walls and pedestals in the room, I see it as an art gallery, IN a community center. maintain your children. or pay.

That is I see, walls covered with art, peristalsis with sculpture, wide hallways leading to other rooms.

[Superman]

I'm with the guys who say the parents had a duty to control their child. I'm also with the guy who say "it's not that simple." A business places a glass thing, unsecured, on a pedestal where the public goes....that's bonehead.

[BeyGon]

and when someone runs a shopping cart into your car that's your fault, for not having a barricade around it. I mean, it's a public place.

[WPOZZZ]

Originally Posted by Baz

Sorry Bryan, I thought I was looking at the same article but I guess not.

Check it out:

No problem, Baz. From the video, I did see the statue fall on the boy, and figured he might have some injuries from the glass. Civil matter? I guess it is up to the attorneys.

[javadog]

A few years ago, I was at an art museum and looking at a large Jackson Pollock painting and some ignorant little snot came up with his parents and started aggressively poking it. It didn't take me long to rip mom and dad a new one. Ignorant *******s, all three of them.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by scottmandue

High end art always has a huge price tag... if I was rich I would have $5-10K paintings hanging in my house (judging from the stuff I like when I visit galleries)

Of course I would have a new(ish) Porsche in a garage... and a $5K watch too.

According to this I am filthy rich....

[tabs]

The parents need to be taught a lesson in taking responsibility. Having a cock in your hand don't make you a man.

[DanielDudley]

Display an artwork worth 132,000 dollars without insurance coverage? If it was in your own home I'm pretty sure you would have it insured. If it was in a gallery I know it would be insured.

Lawyers would have to prove negligence on the part of the parents. Lawyers would counter with negligence of improper display. That was pretty precarious.

My opinion is just an opinion. We have lawyers and laws because opinions are worthless. If you saw this on the ''news'', I'm guessing that you are supposed to have an opinion.

My advice to artists is to make sure you have some sort of coverage of very valuable pieces on public display, and to display in such a way as to make that coverage apply. There is a whole lot of stupid going on here from every angle. If that kid was dead or injured, lawyers would be lining up to take that case for the parents.

Again, a lot of stupid to go around here. Glass sculpture on open display with no semblance of a barrier ? What could go wrong ? I sneeze harder than a little kid can pull at something.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Three kids here, and I would absolutely say that the parents are to blame. As a parent you are responsible for what your kids do, especially a 5 year old. I would NEVER have taken my 5 year old to any sort of area or venue with art on display, it’s just asking for a disaster. Why should an art gallery have to put everything behind bars to protect their exhibits from my inability to parent? I have sat out of a lot of things because of my kids, there are certain places that just aren’t appropriate for little kids.

[javadog]

That glass sculpture would have remained safely in one place until the end of time, unless a kid screwed with it. Had the kid been attacked without warning by the sculpture, I'd blame the sculpture. It's 100% the kids fault, screw the concept of attractive nuisance, and the parents should not have lost sight of the child, especially when you consider he'd already been attracted to it once.

[KevinTodd]

Half-wit parents breed quarter-wit offspring.

[Norm K]

Originally Posted by tabs

According to this I am filthy rich....

Did you miss the "K"s?

_