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.
A Wedding reception is a giant party what are you talking about? He’s five, there are other children there of course they’re going to be together dancing and playing. You can’t seriously expect the children at a wedding just sit at the table with their hands folded in their lap do
I’m not even dead set against the idea of the parents owing something, certainly not most, probably not even half, but this idea that the child is an out-of-control brat and not a typical five-year-old, and that the parents are neglectful idiots, and that parents who raise their children right have children who never do anything wrong, and that good parents prevent every mishap, is just baloney. I feel like there’s a lot of people here who simply don’t like kids, don’t remember being a child, and have ridiculously unrealistic ideas of both parenting and childhood.
Sorry, you must go to different types of weddings than I do. A child that cannot sit quietly, or manage to stay with parents when told to do so, really does not belong at a wedding reception. It is a party, but certainly not a child's party. In this case, it appears that the parent never even knew where her children were. Absolutely ridiculous.
The child was definitely out-of-control. If they had been appropriately supervised, they would NOT have been climbing on the sculpture and the incident would not have occurred.
I have no idea if it’s the kids Dad - I simply assumed that it was as I generally don’t try to manage other people’s children, that’s Dad’s responsibility.
Why do you conclude that it isn’t the Dad?
Because he did not appear to be exercising any real control.
A Wedding reception is a giant party what are you talking about? He’s five, there are other children there of course they’re going to be together dancing and playing. You can’t seriously expect the children at a wedding just sit at the table with their hands folded in their lap do
I’m not even dead set against the idea of the parents owing something, certainly not most, probably not even half, but this idea that the child is an out-of-control brat and not a typical five-year-old, and that the parents are neglectful idiots, and that parents who raise their children right have children who never do anything wrong, and that good parents prevent every mishap, is just baloney. I feel like there’s a lot of people here who simply don’t like kids, don’t remember being a child, and have ridiculously unrealistic ideas of both parenting and childhood.
It was NOT a museum, it was a community center. It was in the lobby of a community center where the family was attending a wedding reception. My local community center is also a library, has classes, and has a fitness area. I would never in a million years assume any art displayed in the lobby there was valuable at all. I'd think it was made by someone in one of the art classes.
Yes! I read the article again and realized what I missed the first time. A community center shouldn't display such valuable stuff without securing them better, because some functions at these venues DO includes kids, an the atmosphere is different from a museum. I think you may be right about the art coming from a student.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,630 posts, read 17,968,125 times
Reputation: 50652
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
If your kid is playing out in the street, and accidentally puts a baseball through your neighbors window, is your response going to be: “too bad neighbor, but that’s a kid being a typical kid. Not our problem, you can pay to fix your own window.”
Or are you going to step up and take financial responsibility for the damage your kid caused?
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.
The parents are at fault for not supervising their child, but I also think the venue has some responsibility if unaccompanied visitors had access to unsecured artwork.
Yes they shoukd have watched the child but the place should have secured it down so it couldnt be knocked over!!
I say its thier own fault for not securing it better........ A 5yo isnt gonna push very hard!! -- It could have hit him and hurt him!! (Then they could sue)
I dunno what the answer is..... Stupidity on both ends......
Quote:
The boy’s parents argue the sculpture should have been better protected if it carried such a high price tag.
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.
Once again, you’re conflating liability/responsibility with the value of the damage. The two aren’t the same, and in fact have nothing to do with one another.
Your position of being responsible if the damages are small, but not if the damages are large is very unreasonable.
Yes, all parents are supposed to be responsible for their children's behaviour. I'm curious about what would happen if the mother were not rich, had no house, no car to sell, and had no money to pay for that art piece? Would she have to go to jail if she could not pay? I don't think so. Otherwise, what would be the consequence?
A piece of art got broken by a child, and the mother (if poor) has to pay $132,000 for it. That's too much, and it can't be done.
Yes, all parents are supposed to be responsible for their children's behaviour. I'm curious about what would happen if the mother were not rich, had no house, no car to sell, and had no money to pay for that art piece? Would she have to go to jail if she could not pay? Otherwise, what would be the consequence?
A piece of art got broken by a child, and the mother (if poor) has to pay $132,000 for it. That's too much, and it can't be done.
We don’t have debtors prison. If the parent is judgement proof, they won’t face any consequences.
And this is the situation where the community centers insurance would bear the cost of the damage.
I can't imagine the mental gyrations you've had to go through to come up with that.
I'm sure you can't.
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.
