This topic post is more on target with long ago forum name "fun/fluff" section. :-)
The thread on DU web site is reaching nearly 300 posts/comments with blame either being on the parents of the child or on the community center in not securing the artwork properly, or on the insurance company choosing to not cover the loss of the artwork and some blame on the artist/sculpture himself because of over-estimating the value of his perceived artwork.
As for pointing finger of ratio of blame of who is at fault: the community center for not securing the artwork (blame is 25%) while the dumb-ass parents deserve 75% of the blame.
Watch the video. The mother isn't blaming herself, but the community center. No..... "Lady" (questionable parenting skills) "You are at fault. You should be lucky the art piece didn't hurt your free range kid who can't control himself."
She should get a $50,000 fine for being both negligent and stupid to boot.
-- 5 year old's touch sends on-loan sculpture crashing to floor. Kansas City bills parents 132K
Wrangling 5-year-olds can be challenging. Failing to do so can apparently be expensive. Or so learned a Kansas couple, who say they may be on the hook for a $132,000 sculpture their young son knocked over. ABC News reports that while at the Tomahawk Ridge Community Center in Overland Park for a May 19 wedding reception, the 5-year-old was caught reaching toward the sculpture by surveillance cameras; "Aphrodite di Kansas City" toppled over and fell. Then the other shoe dropped, in the form of an insurance claim for $132,000—the piece's list price—from the company that insures the city. Sculptor Bill Lyons says he spent roughly 2 years creating the glass piece and that his inspection of it revealed damage to the head and arms. It is "beyond my capabilities and desires to rebuild it," Lyons says.
"You’re responsible for the supervision of a minor child ... your failure to monitor could be considered negligent," the letter from the insurance company read in part. Mom Sarah Goodman counters that the whole scenario was dangerous, and not because of her child. "He didn’t maliciously break that. It fell on him. It was not secure, it was not safe—at all." As for what he was doing, she tells the Kansas City Star "he probably hugged it ... because he’s a loving, sweet nice boy who just graduated from preschool." Overland Park says the piece was on loan and it was obligated to file an insurance claim, and the insurance company was subsequently obligated to contact the family. They say they're hopeful their homeowner's insurance policy will cover the situation, reports KSHB. (This woman says she didn't ruin an $89,000 artwork but rather increased its value.) --
How do you know it's top-heavy? Looks like it could have a fairly heavy base to me ...
All that thick mosaic is fairly heavy + requires a lot of epoxy which has weight. A lot depends on how thick the mosaic is, how thick the glass is, how thick that metal frame is, and what's under all that mosaic. Can't know just by looking at this statue.
I agree the pedestal looks a bit inadequate and the wisdom of having a supposedly near $100K in value statue in an area used for parties without it being somehow enclosed seems questionable at best.
And I suppose a kid that young knocking it over provides fairly decent evidence it wasn't bottom-heavy ENOUGH unless he totally climbed up onto the top 1/2 ;-) --
Was in Walmart the other day. A customer broke a bottle of wine. They did not have to pay. These people who are bitching about her being a bad parent probably do not have children. I'm not saying it is OK to let your kids run free, but they do get free sometimes. In this case it wasn't for very long at all. Guess he likes tits and wanted a feel. If that piece of shit is worth $132,000, I'm surprised someone did not grab it and run out the door.
>Being in America, the family should get a lawyer and not admit anything.
Unfortunately or fortunately [depending on views] with video cameras capturing the events and knowing this took place in Kansas, the jury will place all blame on parents even if the community center didn't do a decent job of preventing visitors from touching artwork.
A community center is more of public place instead of a museum so any safeguards that would be considered for museum standards were overlooked by community center staff. This was a place that the artwork should have never been in to begin with.
I found it comical that on of the regular DU commenters [mentioned he has a law practice in US...assuming that is true] stated the kid should be commended for his actions of destroying the artwork since it was a potential dangerous artwork piece that could harm passersby. LOL I know who to avoid for legal representation if I need legal assistance. :-)
>Also, anyone who thinks that piece of junk is worth more than a new car has got to be deluded.
Yep. A thousand or two .... maybe, but no way more than that imo.
>Was in Walmart the other day. A customer broke a bottle of wine. They did not have to >pay.
If the customer was doing something stupid like throwing bottle in the air while inside the store premises and trying to play catch with bottle, he probably would be paying.
The Kansas community center's security camera's videoclip shows child trying to grab on to the artwork instead of bumping into the artwork piece. Had it only been child bumping into the piece and it fell, the blame would likely be 50/50 on both community center and parents. If there is a civil trial with this, the jury might have sided with parents if child had accidentally bumped into the artwork. With child actually grabbing onto the artwork piece, the Kansas jury will side with community center and insurance company imo.
>These people who are bitching about her being a bad parent probably do not have >children. I'm not saying it is OK to let your kids run free, but they do get free >sometimes. In this case it wasn't for very long at all.
Granted the aired/edited newsclip doesn't show all of the parent's statement, but if the parent only blamed everyone else but themselves, I can see where the Kansas jury [if there is a civil case] will place all blame on the parent.
>Guess he likes tits and wanted a feel.
Which is why I made sure to copy some of those comments here. :-)
>If that piece of shit is worth $132,000, I'm surprised someone did not grab it and run out the door.
An artist's inflated ego value for such an item imo. If anyone tried to take that, they should wear a paper bag to avoid embarrassment for wanting to even take such item. Only interested clients wanting that object for their collection would be 5 year old boys just wanting that for......experimentation purposes.
Index 
Threaded 
5 year old's touch sends on-loan sculpture crashing to floor. Kansas City bills parents 132K
Reply
[Re: 
