Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do we now need signs on everything that no one should touch without explicit authorization that say "Do not touch"? Must we label everything from now on, so that if a child harms something, and the harmed party asks the parents to pay, no parent can then say "But there wasn't even a sign that said 'Do not touch'," and try to refuse to pay?
There is precedent in relation to danaged art and this is not the first such case.
Basically where it's an accident the institution or insurance just pays for the restoration.
Furthermore the exhibit should be poperly secured and protected to prevent the possibility of it being damaged whilst on public display, and there is also has a duty of care to visitors in relation to objects being easily toppled over by children or adults and injuring them.
Where there is a malicious attempt to destroy the art work, the police can become involved and the person can be charged with Criminal Damage and the institution may take civil action.
There has been enough cases involving adults, and in terms of a child I don't see how the parents should be found liable for something that wasn't secured properly or behind glass casing.
Kinney never heard from the gallery again. While she worried that her personal details might have been taken for the purposes of a debt collector, the reason was likely much more banal: insurance. After a work of art is damaged, a gallery or institution will fill out an incident report, which documents what exactly happened and who was involved.
In the vast majority of cases, a visitor like Kinney who breaks an artwork by mistake won’t be held accountable for paying for the repair or the value of the work. “Generally speaking, they’re invitees to the premises,” said Colin Quinn, director of claims at AXA Art Americas Corporation.
Museum- and gallery-goers are technically considered to be invited into those spaces, and assuming that the institution took reasonable measures to protect the piece in question, an insurance company will pick up the tab for any accidental damage to a work of art. The situation is of course different if a person intentionally damages a work of art, in which case they may need to pay for the work’s repairs or cover its value, in addition to facing criminal penalties.
Much to my chagrin, a Court decided over 100 years ago that children are responsible for their own Torts. Meaning the child has to pay not the parents. I disagree with this aged decision but it has been used in countless lawsuits since its decree.
In the original suit a Hotel Bellhop lost a finger in a revolving door due to an out-of-control child, IIRC.
This is a community center. If a 5 year old in a birthday party there (they were happening at the same time) had to go to the bathroom, he'd say I'm going to the bathroom and the adult would say ok it's down that hallway.
The parents are saying goodbye in one portion of the community center, and the two children went ahead of them toward the exit and lingered in the lobby with comfortable seating and a few art pieces.
CPS does NOT come after parents in those situations. Thank the good lord.
I'm sorry, but no. Lots of other events going on there, people unknown to the parents all over the place. A responsible parent would accompany a child that young to the bathroom. I'm not saying that CPS should be involved in this case, as that would be extreme, but so is your suggestion.
It’s nothing some good corporal punishment can’t fix. Kids don’t know any better, but they do know a belt. It’s a tool that has worked for ages.
Looking at the video, that kid was out of control. Looked like he thought he was on a playground during recess at school
The issue is not only that he touched it, but that he climbed onto it like a toy. This means the kid was not sufficiently taught by the parents to not act up.
A belt? Seriously? I was about as hyper as they come as a child, yet I never broke anything and my parents never belted me, either. They did, however, monitor my behavior and teach me to be careful with other people's belongings.
I'll bet that "artist" is jumping with joy and is anticipating a big payday. Most people wouldn't give a nickel for a piece of junk like that. Maybe a charge of attempted grand larceny would be in order, for putting a price-tag like that on it?
Plenty of artwork out there that looks like junk but it’s worth hundreds of thousands or millions. Don’t get me wrong I think most “art” out there is a joke but that’s my opinion. If someone else sees it as art and to them it’s worth paying x amount then it’s valuable to somebody.
I mean the Mona Lisa is really just a painting. Many artists can make a perfect copy of one.
Has everyone missed the information on the article, that said that the child was attempting to prop up the sculpture, to keep it from falling over? That would complicate the whole issue and the parents should not cave in to the exorbitant claim of value, without a court fight. Even if a court found in favor of the city and the artist, there would still have to be a legitimate value established and it would not be based on the artist's fanciful hopes.
The child was attempting to prop it up, AFTER he had climbed up on it and pulled on it. THEN he saw it toppling. No complication at all.
Well, if the window is worth 132K, yes, I'd say forget that. I'm not paying 132K for a broken friggin window.
If the window is worth a normal amount, a couple hundred dollars, most parents would arrive with the checkbook, and apologize, and hand over the money.
Do you not honestly see the difference here?
You seem fairly reasonable otherwise.
Now we have the real issue for you. It's not about the kid's behavior, it's about the price.
I am sure that will be decided in court, but guess what? You do not get to decide how much other people's stuff is worth.
Much to my chagrin, a Court decided over 100 years ago that children are responsible for their own Torts. Meaning the child has to pay not the parents. I disagree with this aged decision but it has been used in countless lawsuits since its decree.
In the original suit a Hotel Bellhop lost a finger in a revolving door due to an out-of-control child, IIRC.
A small child generally can not be found guilty of negligence, as they don't have the full capacity to understand or indeed read warning signs.
However parental liability may be created by statute, or by independently negligent behavior on the part of parents.
Although in this case, it looks like the centre displaying the work was the one at fault, as they knew weddings with guests including were using the facility, and the art work in sguld have been secured in a cabinet or glass case or have been displayed somewhere where it would have been safe from being knocked over.
If a child of 5 can climb up and knock something over, then it is clearly not secured properly or being displayed properly and this may actually breach health and safety legislation, indeed the initial article evben mentions that there was no border around the scuplture and no signs.
As for being damaged beyond repair, I doubt it, there have been numerous cases of far woirse damage where restoration has been successful, you just need to take in to a specialist in NYC, London or Paris etc.
Now we have the real issue for you. It's not about the kid's behavior, it's about the price.
I am sure that will be decided in court, but guess what? You do not get to decide how much other people's stuff is worth.
amen and this is a clear case of mommy wanted to be at a wedding where she could chit chat with her friends . Im sorry when you have a 5 yr old sometimes you have to put your chit chat aside and watch your kids . she does not get to decide what other peoples stuff is worth . on the brighter side the kid might have learned a lesson along with mommy . Don't touch anything of anyone elses and mommy might have learned to watch her kids better but judging from her attitude on the video I doubt she has learned anything .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
