Parents face $132,000 claim after kid knocks over sculpture

Jun 18, 2018 6:42 PM

anlyin

Views

134697

Likes

2586

Dislikes

59

https://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-face-132000-claim-kid-knocks-sculpture/story?id=55927437

Parents of a 5-year-old Kansas boy were hit with a $132,000 bill after their son knocked over an art sculpture on display at a local community center.

Surveillance video captured the little boy reaching for the sculpture, called “Aphrodite di Kansas City” on display in the lobby of the Tomahawk Ridge Community Center in Overland Park, Kansas, when it toppled over.

Then a few days later, the family received a $132,000 claim from the city of Overland Park’s insurance company, saying that the piece had been damaged beyond repair.

“You’re responsible for the supervision of a minor child… your failure to monitor could be considered negligent,” the insurance letter read in part.

“I was surprised, absolutely, more so offended to be called negligent,” said the boy’s mother Sarah Goodman. “They were treating this like a crime scene.”

The sculpture’s artist, Bill Lyons, told ABC News it took him about two years to create the piece and it was listed for sale at $132,000. He examined the piece himself, he said, and concluded it could not be repaired.

“It’s beyond my capabilities and desires to rebuild it,” he said.

City officials say the piece was not “permanently attached” but it was secured to the pedestal with clips and that it was “a not an interactive piece.”

“We’ve had other pieces there [and] we’ve not had problems,” said city spokesman Sean Reilly. “We’ve not had this situation… we’ve not had kids climb on our pieces.”

But Goodman argued the sculpture should have been better secured. She also disputes the city’s claim that her child wasn’t being supervised. Goodman said she and her husband were out of frame of the surveillance camera, saying their goodbyes during a wedding reception that they were leaving, when the incident occurred.

“No one would ever to expect that to come into a place that kids are invited and have to worry about a $132,000 dollar piece of art falling on their child,” Goodman said. “Because he didn’t maliciously break that. It fell on him. It was not secure, it was not safe -- at all.”

I hate parents who just let their evil bastard's just reck other people stuff.

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

"HANDS IN POCKETS!!" My mom would say that when I went into almost any store

7 years ago | Likes 37 Dislikes 1

"[...]offended to be called negligent"

7 years ago | Likes 130 Dislikes 5

I agree. The insurance company is being an evil dick here.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Sarah: She *might* have been a bit negligent...

7 years ago | Likes 429 Dislikes 1

Gotta pay attention to your brats, once in a while !

7 years ago | Likes 33 Dislikes 0

People so not want to accept responsibility for anything let alone their kids ecspecially when it comes to money.

7 years ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 2

138k for ugly broken glass and solder. also, was that solder lead free? i wonder what OverlandParks Pb ordinance is...

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 6

From this angle it looks like the kid is grabbing the statues boobs.

7 years ago | Likes 50 Dislikes 2

can you blame him?

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

im pretty sure he is lol

7 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

He’s trying to motorboat them titties! My man!

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

If her argument is that kids should not be invited to places that are not kids safe, I agree with that. 1/2

7 years ago | Likes 115 Dislikes 7

I agree and the object was not secure and could have killed the kid.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

2/2 I would love to go to a museum/movie/restaurant without annoying kids around. On the other hand, maybe just make your kids museum-safe?

7 years ago | Likes 109 Dislikes 5

Hold their hand or don’t bring them to a wedding if they can’t sit semi still. I actually kind of agreed with the parents till I saw the (1)

7 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 0

whole video. He was goofing off way too long. They honestly should just get a lawyer since the piece was unsold, and get s lower price. (2)

7 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 0

At my wedding we had set aside a time that the kids would go home/leave with a babysitter, and all the adults could stay/drink and dance. 1

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

2 if the parents of those kids didn't like that, then they could leave as well. It was a total blast.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

With proper taxidermy, the guilty child could be placed on exhibit in place of the damaged statue.

7 years ago | Likes 178 Dislikes 12

Or his stupid mother...or both... Now named "Statue And stupid child.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Only Chuck Testa can do it.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Under-rated comment right there, +1 for you.

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

Not a lot of people would want to look at a dick in an exhibition

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Yeah, I don't know how much that thing weighed, but they're lucky they didn't end up with their kid's head smashed open.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

I dunno on one hand, she needs to watch her kids, on the other, they should have had it more secure. I call stalemate on this one

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

If your five year old needs a "do not touch" sign for something like that, you didn't do your job as a parent, so yeah, negligent, fuckhead.

7 years ago | Likes 671 Dislikes 57

In my experience it’s often the adults who need the do not touch sign not the kids in museums

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

“If it doesn’t belong to you, don’t touch it.” Basic parenting.

7 years ago | Likes 46 Dislikes 2

My mom always told me to put my hands in my pockets, because otherwise I would end up touching things. But she also didn't let me run amok.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

The kid can't read anyway, and the parents couldn't read it from across the room. So moot point.

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

agreed - that kid looked old enough to have been taught how to behave. Behavior, attention, respect - these traits need to be taught.

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Like a 5 year old would read and heed such a sign.

7 years ago | Likes 94 Dislikes 22

Adults don't see signs. Source: I worked in a museum/park. Our Bears had to be euthanized because a stupid bitch didn't read the Sign

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Adults dont even do that majority of the time

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

My exact thoughts.

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

That's why parents are reponsible for their rejects until 18

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Exactly! Most 5-year-olds can't read yet.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

... You haven't met a five year old recently have you?

7 years ago | Likes 36 Dislikes 50

That’s why you make your kid hold your hand or go sit on their hands if they can’t behave while you say goodbye. Source: I had a 5 y.o. boy

7 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

I have, but they also have active & involved parents who teach them how to behave in public and don't leave them unsupervised in such areas.

7 years ago | Likes 62 Dislikes 11

My parents always watched us. We were taught how to behave. We took off occasionally when they were talking. It happens. Never did this tho.

7 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 0

Pay day for the artist. Guarantee that thing would have never sold for $132,000.

7 years ago | Likes 58 Dislikes 6

He tried and it didn't. Why do you think it was insured without anything protecting it in a area trafficked by kids

7 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 4

You're talking to me as if that's hard to believe. However, if insurance knew what they were doing they would decline the cover based -

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

on it not being properly protected or bolted down.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

INSIDE JOB !!

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

You can list art at any price. Doesn't mean it's worth it. That being said, watch your damn kids.

7 years ago | Likes 37 Dislikes 2

The damages will be what the center paid for it, in all likelihood.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

It was probably donated I doubt a comunity center has that kind of cash

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It seems pretty outrageous for a community center to be spending that, I agree.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'm betting the artist let the community center display it for free. Most community centers near me don't have that kind of money.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

It does seem like a large budget item for a community center, that's true....but if that's the case, they don't have much of a claim.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Lots of important facts, as a legal matter, that we are in the dark about. Oh well, this post is mainly for yelling at each other anyway.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

If they claimed it on insurance, they would have insured it for whatever the artist claimed it was worth. It would only be independently 1/2

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

(1/2)I never want kids and they are all monsters but as someone who has to mount heavy objects on the reg you generally try to make sure...

7 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 1

(2/2)this couldn't happen. Someone could've leaned on it and done this. Or kid could be injured. Protect your investment and yourself better

7 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 1

I'm all for slapping the parents with the bill but if a statue can be pulled down by a five year old, it wasnt very well secured to start

7 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 8

Funny, if the child was injured they could be suing the Center for not securing a dangerously heavy sculpture properly.

7 years ago | Likes 87 Dislikes 2

And they would so...wash?

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

They should and probably will countersue. It wasn't secure in a public place? Could have crippled or killed the kid.

7 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 4

It clearly hurt the kid in the video.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

As it is, they're lucky enough to have a living kid and a large bill.

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

It is the parents fault for letting the kids just run off on their own in an exhibit

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

You still need to take actions to avoid accidents. It should've been mounted more securely, or in a case. Both parties at fault.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

It was a wedding party where kids were invited, at a community center. The center knowingly allowed this party with this item unsecured.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

In a community center? Well, its kind of implied in the name. But You'll see. The parents wont pay shit.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

They'll get a large settlement most likely.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I wonder how different it would be if the kid got hurt and the statue was fine. Bet the parents would try to sue then.

7 years ago | Likes 2318 Dislikes 16

No doubt about that.

7 years ago | Likes 277 Dislikes 1

Especially here in Johnson County (where Overland Park is), we have an insane number of lawyers living here...

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

7 years ago (deleted Sep 15, 2018 4:13 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

But the fact remains the same, that the human causes it upon its self, even if they are too young to realize it. I understand your point tho

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 5

"Alright Son, if you ever knock anything over, make sure to dive under it"

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Her argument is that it was not properly secured. Seems like she would use the do argument

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I love how he initially grabs The statues titty with his left hans

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Hand*

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Well yeah, they’d be in their rights to.

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 6

Not really, no

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

If the statue was properly secured or in an actual gallery, I'd agree with you.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I wonder if the mom said anything to anyone. Context seems to suggest not. She might have been able to avoid this with a little courtesy.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Parents will probably try to sue anyway.

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 4

Ironically, their argument would be the same, though. “The statue was improperly secured”

7 years ago | Likes 322 Dislikes 12

Yes, because it was. Which is why this suit probably won't go anywhere.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That doesn't make it ironic. It makes it a coherent argument that doesn't appeal to outcome to justify itself.

7 years ago | Likes 138 Dislikes 4

"There was no glass case." Yup same argument

7 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 3

A child being hurt is worse than an object being damaged.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

A child could have been hurt. They weretearing around without effective supervision.By luck, it didn't land on his head or torso

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's obvious in the video that he did get hurt. They're probably launching this ridiculous suit against the parents preemptively.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

You strike me as a negligent parent who's children run a muck wherever they go.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

You're ignorant of how law and responsibility actually work in real life among well-adjusted, rational people.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

How exactly is it obvious?

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

He wanders away holding his head.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Harambe

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Too soon, brah. Too soon.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The easy solution to both would have been too affix the statue to the base to make it so either case wouldn't happen.

7 years ago | Likes 90 Dislikes 19

Kid could have still damaged it.

7 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 4

No, that would damage the statue that is for sale. The whole point is to avoid damage. Just watch your damn kids... It's not hard

7 years ago | Likes 44 Dislikes 9

Wife and I have stopped hanging w/ friends who don't watch their kids. I worked in insurance, always watching for probs when parents didn't.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Or, be a better parent and not let your kids run around like that

7 years ago | Likes 89 Dislikes 24

I'm wondering why of all the places you let your kid run around why would you do it around a bunch of art

7 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 2

7 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 5

Fuck her, she can pay full price. If her kid would’ve gotten hurt, she would’ve wanted a hell of a lot more than $132K

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 5

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

How do you know? You are just generalizing a complete stranger.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Have you raised children?

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 4

Yep. They were well behaved when we went out. Why? Are you one of the bad parents that let kids run around screaming and being disruptive?

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

Oh hell no, my kid's respectful. I don't do that bratty shit. I was just curious and I can't remember why.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Either gets solved by "watching your fucking kids" and teaching them how to behave in a museum

7 years ago | Likes 96 Dislikes 28

I started when my son was 2 and he can be out in civilized society without me hovering or a 130K bill. Ya gotta teach them.

7 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

*NOT A MUSEUM*

7 years ago | Likes 42 Dislikes 5

Oh my bad, then by all means let your children destroy stuff.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Did you EVER break anything as a child?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not when out in places I was told to behave in

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

never ever got out of view of your parents or did anything wrong as a kid

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

I didn't.. my mom would scare me about strangers or publicly embarass me. But my bro once unscrewed every chair in a waiting room at 6yo.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I certainly knew enough as a kid that a statue wasn't something to climb like that. Kid is a brat and parents didn't control him.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

At 5yo no less! It takes maybe 10-15 seconds for disaster. I would 100% have the same argument as the parents. Unsafe, OSHA would fine them!

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

Though to be fair, it's not really a museum. It's a community center.

7 years ago | Likes 61 Dislikes 6

Oh then by all means let your children destroy stuff

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Yeah, it makes no sense to have art of this value out in the open in a community centre. Kids run around in community centres.

7 years ago | Likes 50 Dislikes 5

It doesn't matter. The kid shouldn't be climbing on the walls. You have to train and watch your kids.

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

Found the person without kids... or the helicopter parent breeding future ignorance

7 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 15

I have kid and I'm more of a free range parent. I taught my kid to behave. So the ignorant one is you

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I know shit happens and you can't watch your kids 24/7 but you can teach them not to touch without permission or to stay beside you.

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Yeah but all of humanity is aware that a five year does not have the mental capacity to make the best decision in that regard every time 1/?

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

and that children can get out of sight, especially in an enclosed area at a family gathering, and so the real idiot here is the community2/?

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

At the very least for safety sake so they don't get crushed or kidnapped.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Nope parents fault totally

7 years ago | Likes 75 Dislikes 22

They definitely should have been wrangling the kids more effectively, but an unsecured $132 000 sculpture in a community centre is stupid.

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

Zero chance of that.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

7 years ago (deleted Jun 20, 2018 11:26 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

They let their kids run off on their own and they broke shit

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I have two young kids and here's my take: If the kid was walking by and accidentally knocked it over, fine, not necessarily the (1/2)

7 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

kid's or parents fault. But this kid was climbing on it! He should have been taught better or watched over better. Parent's fault (2/2)

7 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

As a parent of a 3 year olds fuuuuuuuuuuuuck them and all the shit parents that don’t watch their shitty kids.

7 years ago | Likes 1389 Dislikes 55

Ouuuuu yeeaaah

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS! Shitty parenting solves like 99% of our country's problems, I'd bet.

7 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 4

Also mother to a 3yr old. Agree 100%. Hold onto ya damn crotch goblins.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Crotch goblins... tehe

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 3

I laughed at the part where they were offended by being called neglegant. Any child our of your sight/control is the parents fault.

7 years ago | Likes 143 Dislikes 3

To be fair I'd say the same shit if 130 grand was on the line, regardless of whether I think it's true or not

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It is fucking offensive and completely ridiculous.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Not really. If that child came into your house and broke something expensive while the parent wasn't watching them, it's the parents fault.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

No, that's not really how things work. I can't leave a $million piece of art one the floor in front of the door and then send you a bill 1/?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

when you step on it. There's a sorting-out of who's really to blame, who could have prevented what. 2/2

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I told a guy off for buying his rotten kids ice creme BEFORE dinner came out at a restaurant because they pretty much ran all up and down...

7 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 1

My hero!

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

The place and even brought noisy toys, security was called twice and they didn't change. I was like "you rewarding that shit mate"

7 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 0

Really? Your kid has never managed to run out of your sight for 5s? Well, lets see that couple years in time.

7 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 65

Irrelevant. Parents should've taught 5 YO to look with his eyes, not his hands. Shitty parenting. This is why we can't have nice things.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Well if my kid was to knock over a priceless statue I wouldn’t look at them and continue chatting like these parents did.

7 years ago | Likes 47 Dislikes 4

The news I saw this morning said that wasn't the parents.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I don't think those are the parents. The text says they were out of frame saying goodbye at a wedding reception.

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

That’s even worse they just let the kids run off on their own in the exhibit

7 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 0

Please do us a favor and don't make us deal with your kids for you.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

My 2.5 year old would get a talk prior to being let loose, and a close eye. He'd be fine, but in case he got too close all it would take 1/2

7 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 3

Would be a stern voice and he'd stop. If you can't get your kid to stop with a command you shouldn't leave them unattended. 2/2

7 years ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 3

But but they're not pets...man! You can't just command children like that, pfff kuh chuh, they're people!

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The problem is these people let their kids run around. They weren't supervising them at all.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

2 downvotes. 2 shitty parents

7 years ago | Likes 106 Dislikes 16

There are now 29! So many bad parents! Haha

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

55 and counting...

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

42 negligent patents & counting. How the fuuuuuck is this not solely on the parents? It didn't just "fall" your little shit pulled it down!

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

As a parent of a child I KNOW is hyper active, my son would have been on his monkey backpack at that age (a leash and harness)

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That's because I know how how much he likes to wiggle free and rabbit on us. He's calmed down a lot now that he is able to understand

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

WHY it's not good to act like that. But FFS What the hell is wrong with those parents?

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

On one hand, I agree. On the other, that shit ain't worth 132k.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

Have you ever made a sculpture? How would you know if it wasn't worth the money.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Nope, but I've worked in insurance claims, and art is barely worth the materials it's made with until it's appraised by and actual (1)

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

dealer/appraiser. The artist doesn't get to dictate the art's worth in any legal dealings. (2)

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

...I'm sorry, Aphrodite of Kansas City? Is that a joke?

7 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

He was supervised, just out of frame, from a different room. $132k is a hefty reminder to do some parenting.

7 years ago | Likes 74 Dislikes 11

Lol right. I don’t agree that he should pay full cost but the parents weren’t close enough to stop him when he fumbled with the statue.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

And one that she clearly needed.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

It's also unreasonable given the circumstances. It's a wedding where kids are invited. The center hosting the art knew this.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If we grant that the child was supervised, the damage was done with the consent of the parents. How does this avoid negligence?

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

I don't think it does. The parents' argument digs the home deeper

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Negligence doesn't mean your child was out of your sight for 10 seconds in an enclosed area among friends. Negligence means something more.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

One could argue negligence for not having a heavy, and potentially dangerous item secured. I'd counter sue.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That’d be funny your kid destroys the artist’s property so you sue

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's not funny it's entirely reasonable.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

How do you supervise from another room?

7 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 7

v you dont

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

You're the best gorilla

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

both are wrong...parents got to watch their kids - no amount of precaution will prevent a child from messing with something, BUT 1/2

7 years ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 3

2/2 the building has to take SOME measures to secure a 100k+ piece of art...especially with kids around...Id say they split the cost...

7 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 2

I agree. If a 5 yr old can pull it over, its not secured. Also the artist sounds like a massive cunt

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 3

This is not a children's museum. "Don't touch" is standard for EVERY museum. Get a leash for your fucking vagina puppy, you dumb cunt.

7 years ago | Likes 150 Dislikes 60

+1 for vagina puppy

7 years ago | Likes 36 Dislikes 10

*not a museum. *

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

"Community center" implies that its for all members of the community. The parents are going to win 100%. That "art" wasn't secure and a

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

danger to children, mentally or physically disabled, the elderly etc... Maybe secure it properly next time?

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Vagina puppy is the best thing I've heard all year

7 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 10

Community center is not exactly a museum. And I am pretty sure not a single one has art of 132k real value on display.

7 years ago | Likes 37 Dislikes 8

Well...this one did. And now I don't know that others *wouldn't* have similar, now that I know of at least one place that does. Did.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

You're right, the art had never been sold to demonstrate that value, artist let the centre display it while "waiting for sale".

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Which would not occur during the grate artistes life

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Museum, gallery, community center. Irrelevant. It wasn't a place for her 5 year old fucktrophy to climb shit unsupervised.

7 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 23

Its a COMMUNITY CENTER!!!! That implies its for all members of the community. The parents WILL win this. You have an obligation if you put

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

items in an area that is used by the public to make sure it isn't a threat to the public. Yes, MOST American's are dangerously stupid.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

It could have been anywhere. The point is the little fucker shouldn't have been climbing it. His parents weren't watching him.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's not irrelevant because community center has totally different purpose than museum. Are you planning to leash your kid everywhere?

7 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 5

Also, yes. There are a lot of kids that should be on a leash at all times. Most dogs are better behaved than most kids.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It doesn't matter where it was. The fucker shouldn't be climbing on it. The parents weren't parenting.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Your first comment nailed it but now it seems like you're trying too hard. It's like you're the comment equivalent to a movie sequel

7 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 1

v

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Hey its that n***erguy!

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I understand this is a community center, but it is obviously not a playground or daycare for others to watch them. Make your kids behave.

7 years ago | Likes 1506 Dislikes 31

Agreed. You child proof a house or day care, but public community center that may have a local art wing, keep an eye on your kids.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

No responsibility to keep an eye on the art? Just lock it up in the closet when the space is rented for weddings?

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They were probably planning for the statue to get knocked over. Who doesn't box in a statue of that value!

7 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 11

This type situation is exactly what insurance is for. The community center was responsible for the statue and should've had insurance.

7 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 3

They did. Insurance is being dicks. The kid was obviously hurt and they're trying to scare the parents into signing a waiver.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I mean idk about you but the community centre in my town is a playground plus building plus a bunch of activities for kids because 1/2

7 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 7

Wait for it... IT'S A FUCKIN COMMUNITY CENTER of course kids are going to be running and playing around it in.

7 years ago | Likes 36 Dislikes 6

GIVE THEM THE BELT!

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Indeed. So how does that factor into the duty of each party, and the proximate cause of the statue breaking?

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Exactly. The duty of the community center, the artist, and the insurance company to make even the slightest effort to secure or protect 1/?

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

this item wrt its $132K value and its danger as an injury hazard are far more clearcut and far more neglected here than the debatable 2/?

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

duty of parents to keep a child at arm's length in an enclosed space at a family party where children were invited and plenty of other 3/?

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

family adults are around, or their duty to reasonably expect that items of limitless arbitrary value are around that can be easily 4/?

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Bankruptcy oughta teach em a lesson!

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

A 5 y-o is by definition turbulent, clumsy and clueless to such things. A parent can't be expected to know exactly what their kid's doing1/2

7 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 25

every second of every day especially if the kid in question is the slightest lively. Putting them on a leash all the time isn't a solution.

7 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 24

I wasn't on a leash but I damn well knew not to run around and touch things that weren't mine even as lively clumsy 5 yr old

7 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 1

You remember being 5 holy shit balls

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 5

Knowing where they are and what a 5 yo is doing is called parenting! Mom was busy playing grab ass.

7 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 7

[deleted]

[deleted]

7 years ago (deleted Jun 19, 2018 2:38 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

It is insured. They decided the parents are negligent and at fault. Now it's up to parents home owners to see if they agree if parents fault

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They did. The insurance company is suing.

7 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 3

[deleted]

[deleted]

7 years ago (deleted Jun 19, 2018 2:38 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Read the story, it clearly says insurance.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

How does insurance work in your country then?? They aren't a charity. They litigate against the at fault party after paying their customer.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Exactly. The owner/city will get repaid...but the insurance company will try to recoup the cost. (Or not pay.)

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

never did anything wrong as a kid?

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 17

I lied about my homework and didn't eat my vegetables, but I never ruined a $100k+ art piece as a kid.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

never knocked over anything? This is only a 100k art piece in hindsight for anyone involved. It sure isnt treated like one.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Noone blames the kid

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

okay, this is still relevant if you're blaming the parents because then it means his parents let him do something wrong as a kid.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 10

there's a weird number of people in these comments who never did anything wrong or ever got out of view of their parents as a kid

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 12

Why have 132k "art" in community center in the 1st place. Even a cleaner could trip that over by accident wo having any idea of its "worth".

7 years ago | Likes 125 Dislikes 24

Overland Park....

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

As an artist, it makes me glad that they have expensive art in such an open community space. It brings art to the people w/o museum costs.

7 years ago | Likes 36 Dislikes 4

It is nice to have open access to fine art. But listed at $132k doesn’t mean sold for $132k. I could list my next shit at $150k.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

It was an art display in a community center. My parents would've never let me touch art. Teach your kids respect, they should know better.

7 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 3

And in b4 "no they wouldn't", cleaners have thrown modern art in trash by accident...wait for it... in a museum of modern art.

7 years ago | Likes 50 Dislikes 6

just like this masterpiece

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

To be fair what constitutes as modern art these days is sometimes literally trash

7 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 3

To be fair here, what distinguishes some modern art from trash is purely your point of view.

7 years ago | Likes 31 Dislikes 2

Artists should be able to take pride in loaning/donating for public consumption. This is clearly a bust on a stand, not something to climb.

7 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 3

I don’t think 5 year olds even with strict parents can comprehend that

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 4

I don't agree with the parent but why would you not have a glass case around a $130,000+ object of any kind. What would the glass run you

7 years ago | Likes 201 Dislikes 19

Bingo! Most people have ignored the liability of the community center when they obtained the license from the artist.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Maybe $20K or more -- price escalates quickly with size, large sheets of tempered glass especially because of liability concerns.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Ya and why are u holding a wedding there... I mean drunk ppl kids etc. Can’t trust them. This is why ppl have insurance.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Right! In tort law, we call that proximate causation.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The statues been sitting there just fine for a plenty long time. It's only when ignorant parents come around that things fall apart.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Maybe they believed that people would be responsible. There have been other places around the world where ppl ruin art that cost a lot w/ no

7 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 3

Indeed. But is that belief reasonable? That is, was the center's failure to secure the statue a proximate cause of it breaking?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Glass or barrier thinking people no not to touch the art or can read signs.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Because if it breaks, insurance will pay the artist back. I'm sure if he'd be more inclined to fix it if he wasn't getting paid

7 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 1

But what about third party impleader?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Like another $1000?

7 years ago | Likes 73 Dislikes 6

So worth more than the statue.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Also don't you think securing it with something a little more structurally sound then some clips would have been a good idea too?

7 years ago | Likes 35 Dislikes 5

Yes items should always be secured. In BC we do so not just for safety but earthquake prevention. Risk management was not executed well

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The thing is, that value is arbitrarily made up by the artist..the piece failed to sell at auction before, so he donated it to the center.

7 years ago | Likes 56 Dislikes 2

If it was donated then the recorded asset value on the balance sheet is zero. So why did they have it insured at the artist asking price?

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

That was a poor choice of words, he had it displayed at the community center.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Lol so it's not really worth that much if it never sold for that much! You can't just donate something and say it's worth $500,000!

7 years ago | Likes 40 Dislikes 4

Exactly. And the artist wants the money for it, not the community center. He's just trying to.make fast cash.

7 years ago | Likes 37 Dislikes 3

Museum cases are ridiculously expensive & people complain when art is behind glass. There should’ve been signs or a rope barrier.

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 4

It shouldn't be there when the space is renting for a wedding. Lock in in the closet during those events. No cost.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Lots of museums host events and weddings and don’t put all their objects away. Constantly moving artworks is a leading cause of damage

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Possible Unpopular opinion: Glass cases around art and sculptures is ugly and glare on the glass can obscure the details/photography of 1/2

7 years ago | Likes 37 Dislikes 6

How about some fucking rope around something that heavy and unsecured? Not to mention arbitrarily expensive.

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

Yes! Most people have missed the potential liability of the community center.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

the object. I'm all for it for artefacts because their historical significance makes them uniquely irreplaceable. People should be able 2/3

7 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 2

to see nice things presented nicely in a public space without worrying about irresponsibility.3/3

7 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 1

Interesting approach. Under the law of negligence, this is called competing duties.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Okay, I can see the point of the claim, but I can also see how if I displayed something worth more than my kidneys I'd probably secure it...

7 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 1

Why secure it when you can insure it?

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Or something that could fall if bumped into by a Kansas fat ass, potentially injuring someone. The parents are going to win this one unless

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

their lawyer is brain dead.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

They should have to pay something their kid broke it but definitely no where near 132 k

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

She wasnt watching her kid, and is therefore negligent. But they failed to secure the statue or encase it, or even put up velvet ropes, so >

7 years ago | Likes 114 Dislikes 17

[deleted]

[deleted]

7 years ago (deleted Jun 20, 2018 11:26 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

You can't be deemed negligent for something completely unreasonable to expect. Never in my life would I go to a wedding where children 1/?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

are invited and just naturally assume that there's $132,000 unsecured shit laying around that can fall and break. That's fucking ridiculous

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The cost of the art on display isnt the issue. The issue is that her child damaged someone else's property while she wasnt watching them.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

No, there are many issues at play here. Life isn't black and white.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The point is that your statement that a person can't be deemed negligent because they weren't aware of the value of the property their >

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They could also be considered negligent. Neither are right. Both contributed to the situation.

7 years ago | Likes 89 Dislikes 7

There's a legal theory called "contributory negligence" where the jury puts a % at fault, and reduces damages by that. So if the jury says

7 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 0

the museum was 30% at fault, then the damages would be 132k x 0.7. This assumes that contributory negligence is the law there.

7 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 0

Yep. Both are to blame, both should take note of this experience and learn their lessons. But seriously, a little rope can't hurt.

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 3

Yeah. If I had a $130k car on view, you better believe it’d be behind ropes. Art should be the same!

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yep. I can understand not having glass, it's probably a bit expensive and ugly to put full body size displays in it, but cmon, ropes.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Kids would just run under the rope tho

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

As a former tort attorney, this makes a fascinating law school exam question.

7 years ago | Likes 327 Dislikes 2

Interestingly, no one has yet touched on the issue of proximate causation...

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

As someone who just finished their 1L year, I immediately thought the same thing.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I just finished a tort class and I think the family will have to pay...they talked about getting a lawyer...

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

What about the liability of the community center, and joint and several liability? Also, why is the child's behavior imputed onto /1

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

the parents? Remember, children can be sued for torts individually, depending on the age of the child. /2

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The kid's 5 and should known better...I do think the parents are at fault here. They were not watching him when he toppled the piece.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Indeed. So if the parents were at fault for not watching the kid, is that fault a proximate cause of the statue breaking?

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'm curious about the claimed value. I'm not sure, "It's listed for sale as $132k" means it's worth $132k. I doubt the artist spent 1/

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 7

When you insure a piece of property, the insurance company will hire an actuary to first have it appraised. The policy probably /1

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

insures the art piece up to $132k based on the initial appraisal. /2

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's not clear the insurance company appraised it though. According to the creator: "I want to be reimbursed for the amount of time 1/

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

that I spent on it and for what I think it is worth." So it seems like the city said, insurance, pay the artist, and the artist said, 2/

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

that much money making it. If it was a unique piece from a long dead artist sure. But the artist is alive and saying he "doesn't want" to 2/

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 7

make it again. And now he should get the $132k it was listed at? I call bullshit.

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 6

As an artist I find it hard to believe a 132k piece was surrounded by crap artwork. No website, no history of sales

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Materials use, time invested, tools and machines use, etc, lets just say it adds up fast.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

It doesn't really matter how much the artist spent making it though. What matters is the pieces value. The piece was on display for sale, 1/

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

He spent two fucking years making it and now its broken cuz some dumb kid wanted to "hug" it

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Well sure, the kid needs to learn how to behave appropriately in public, no doubt. But the value does seem high. Then again, I dont know art

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And? If he couldn't sell it for more than $50 he shouldn't get $132k for it.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 5

So the answer is no, they aren't liable. Makes sense to me.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

What about the kid? Remember, kids can be liable individually for torts. Or the community center?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I feel like everyone missed the potential liability of the community center...

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Not really "You can’t assume that because your child’s actions weren’t intentional or fall outside of 38-120 that you won’t be held liable."

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

"There are also “common law” principles of liability that may still apply and you could still be liable for your child’s actions."

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

it would be for a jury to decide if if the intention was to damage and that it was malicious. hard case even by lax civil standards of guilt

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Would it? Is intent a matter of fact or a matter of law? Would it matter if the trial were bifurcated? (Socratic method from an adjunct!)

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

hugging the statue was intentional

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Very good point. So to which action does the mens rea of intent apply?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

but it's the damage that has to be intentional.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

does the parental responsibility act cover accidental civil damage? or just criminal fines/fees. i know it does not cover probabtion

7 years ago | Likes 98 Dislikes 9

Why go after the parents? Remember, minors can be held individually liable for torts. But can they in this case???

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Nope.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

To scare them.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Under Kansas law, this would likely not be covered, because the act only considers willful "malicious" conduct.

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Question from somebody from EU here. Is that law very different in other states? Or is it more or less the same in all/many?

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They are similar. But disparate. Each state has its own laws, then there are federal laws also. Smaller crimes are muni code.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Under 38-120, a parent is financially liable when a minor under the age of 18 living with one or both of their parents “maliciously or --->

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

someone and/or parental responsibility laws in Kansascauses damage to someone’s property. This statute does not hold a parent liable for -->

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

damages in the event of an accident or careless behavior. Case Closed. westlaw probably faster.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

And who the fuck downvoted this?

7 years ago | Likes 43 Dislikes 18

I upvoted your original question, then came back to downtown it and this after seeing you rage over fake internet points.

7 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 11

That's okay. Got it back

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 9

also, rage? you wanna see rage, you should see me when your mom is late with my hot pocket. and i am not talking about a microwaves snack

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

Probably a negligent parent.

7 years ago | Likes 48 Dislikes 3

I only know it don't cover probation because I refused to make my 14 year old do it. Lol, that was a pissed off judge.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 8

You have something that cost $132k at a rec center, you are an idiot for not securing it.

7 years ago | Likes 96 Dislikes 17

It didn't cost 132k, it was "valued" at 132k, by the artist. It isn't actually worth that much until you convince someone to buy it.

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

Exactly this. Her $800 is probably closer to the real value than the artist's $132K.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Considering it never sold, how much is glass and solder worth? Also, both recyclable

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Or some kind of barrier. Totally agree with this. AND all the people saying “watch your kids” ... experience from a father of four.

7 years ago | Likes 35 Dislikes 6

Even if the art had a barrier, fuck the parents for not teaching their kids never to touch art. They'd probably draw on a painting too.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 7

I agree that they’re both a little at fault. Watch your kids, and secure expensive art.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

$132k but we couldn’t afford to put it in a glass case. Mmkay

7 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 2

Artist claims it to be worth that much. Sticker price.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Especially cuz a wedding reception is being held there, lots of drunk ass people

7 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

[deleted]

[deleted]

7 years ago (deleted Jun 20, 2018 11:26 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

That's where I went with it.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And if it had hurt a child that rec center would be FUCKED.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I don't think the price should really matter. Kids need to know not to break other peoples things, also when it is cheap.

7 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 7

Yeah but common sense is to protect and secure valuable objects; you wouldnt keep your keys in your unlocked car.

7 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 1

Also I'd like to clarify I'm not saying the mother is in the right just that the community center isn't in the right either both party have

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

to take responsibility that they could've done more.

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

What if it wasn't a kid. What if someone tripped or backed up into it. You don't just leave something that expensive sitting out.

7 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 3

That wouldn't be negligence if you fell accidently.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

If you look closely, it looks as if the kid tried picking it up off the stand and the weight overwhelmed him. It did not easily fall.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Um.... That kids like 4. It EASILY fell.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Public places need to secure large, heavy and dangerous items from the public. The parents are going to win this one.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Of course. The expectation on them is completely unreasonable here.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It was simply the first shot in a legal battle that will settle for less than 5k IMO.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Actually, way beyond that. Insurance company saw the footage first and realized they were in very real danger of a negligence suit 1/?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

If this were an art museum then yeah, unacceptable not to watch your kids. But a $132k sculpture at a community center? Really??

7 years ago | Likes 206 Dislikes 30

[deleted]

[deleted]

7 years ago (deleted Jun 20, 2018 11:26 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

That's not what entrapment is and the kid clearly pulls it down in the video

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

[deleted]

[deleted]

7 years ago (deleted Jun 20, 2018 11:26 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

That said not keeping them in check and from doing so is the parent's fault.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

During a wedding reception full of drunkies no less

7 years ago | Likes 53 Dislikes 3

They will likely settle on a much lower price because either that guy will never see the money cause they can't pay or he gets a smaller pay

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

My favorite part is the artist’s “it is beyond my [...] desire to repair” ok dude you just want the $$$. Source: I’m an artist

7 years ago | Likes 61 Dislikes 5

Ya, set a big price tag and now he sees a buyer

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Nice cherry picking. You're probably right, but you still cherry picked the quote.

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 8

That was the biggest red flag for me reading this. I bet that statement comes back to bite him in court

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Leaving out a significant part of the quote to add strength to your point comes off as pretty disingenuous. Limited characters, I know - 1/2

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

But you're actively using their words against them when there is more to what was said. My interpretation of the full quote? They're sick2/3

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

of working on it, and couldnt make it the same as it was. Youre probably right about the $ motivation. But your quote isnt honest, either3/3

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Artist is using this as a way to get a massive price for something nobody would have purchased.

7 years ago | Likes 32 Dislikes 6

So? If the kids has been behaving, there wouldn't have been a problem

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 8

It sounds like the art was listed for sale for $132K, which suggests to me that it actually has never been purchased for $132K to begin with

7 years ago | Likes 65 Dislikes 1

Yeah unless a buyer was lined up to pay that price you can't fairly say it was worth that.

7 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 2

Exactly. How much would you spend for something called "Aphrodite di Kansas City"?

7 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 2

Tree Fiddy

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

$800

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Seems like a little victim-blaming, but that's just my interpretation of your comment

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 22

Word. You never know what can happen.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

but it's simple. don't touch what's not yours. done.

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

There are expensive cars on public streets. If your kid climbs on that and breaks it, you have to pay as well. I don't see the difference.

7 years ago | Likes 77 Dislikes 28

Unless you got a fat kid jumping on your Ferrari's hood like a trampoline, I don't see how this relates to overpriced fragile statues.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

No way the kid should have been climbing on it, but running around in a community center seems like perfectly acceptable kid behavior.

7 years ago | Likes 44 Dislikes 8

insurance that is proper for what is being damaged make i difference. the city should not have taken a price that was not covered.

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

A kid climbing on even a 1 million dollar car doesn't cause 1 millions dollar of damage. Just a weird note to make. Not sure how relevant.

7 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 4

You get charged more in repair costs depending on the value of the car

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I want to see how a kid totals a porsche into non-repairable condition.

7 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 4

"I don't want to repair it so they should buy me a new Porsche"

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

"And its beyond a mechanic's ability to repair as well."

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The difference is a car is actually worth something and art is subjective.

7 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 3

Art is an asset, just like a car, and is valued the same way; cost of purchase/manufacturing.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Not until someone buys it. I can make anything &put $100k price tag on it, doesn’t mean it’s worth it. Insurance should cover it, like it -

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

- would a car. Did the artist pay out for insurance of a $130,000 art piece? I don’t think so.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Either are only worth what someone is willing to pay for it, no?

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

That’s right. And this piece was not sold.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

So by your logic, if it had not sold, it was worthless? I'm not sure I follow..

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The value of a car is subjective as well

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

you can get a pretty good estimate on most cars unless it’s a custom. So I guess sometimes it is.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

you can get a pretty good estimate on most art as well

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

True, but on the other hand you'd have to be pretty dumb to park your Ferrari on the edge of the field you know kids play baseball in.

7 years ago | Likes 50 Dislikes 10

Alright.... I will park my Ferrari somewhere else next time.

7 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 0

Good! Haha

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

But this is saying I had a car for sale, it got dented, and I am charging the people what I was asking for it. Not the same as a true value

7 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 1

Well, as stated above, statue is 'totaled', i.e. beyond repair. So yes, full cost should be sought. Don't want to pay 132k? Then don't 1/2

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 5

break expensive shit I guess.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 4

They SHOULD be held responsible for damage, but sticking them with retail pricing is just vindictive.

7 years ago | Likes 355 Dislikes 60

They will likely settle on a much lower price because either that guy will never see the money cause they can't pay or he gets a smaller pay

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

as vindictive as the artist saying he has "no desire" to fix the piece to save them the burden

7 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 2

I think he meant it couldn’t be fixed, but adding “no desire” makes it sound like he’s being super whiny about it.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Art is subjective. Can be very overpriced. Some Picasso look like kid scribble

7 years ago | Likes 33 Dislikes 4

But... damage a Picasso at the museum or gallery and I guarantee that you will not be having a good time

7 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 1

Damages Picasso, "It wasn't even that good anyway".. lol. Agreed. when you damage other's property, you dont get to decide the replace value

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

A museum that gets hold of a Picasso will have solid insurance and enough tact not to pursue damages unless intentional and malicious

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Unless you maliciously damage it, you'll likely just be asked to leave and maybe banned from the museum.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

insured, properly.... this was not insured properly, hence the insurance refusing to pay

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

It's called subrogation. The insurance company pays the artist and goes after the responsible party. P common.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

also, if not properly insured. look, i garentee the city did not have a policy on this piece. they are trying to cover it with facilities..

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

No, it's a dick move to try to threaten them into signing away their right to sue for hurting their kid.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And they almost certainly can't pay it.

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

They will likely settle on a much lower price because either that guy will never see the money cause they can't pay or he gets a smaller pay

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

In all likelihood the case settles for much less, but it's still really, really going to hurt.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

They're Asian. I bet they can

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 13

Retarded

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

How do you know they're Asian?

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Vindictive would be charging them for the costs of the investigation, assessing the damage, and attorney's fee.

7 years ago | Likes 129 Dislikes 12

[deleted]

[deleted]

7 years ago (deleted Jun 20, 2018 11:26 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

"Not spending much" doesn't equal "can't bill much." Technician might get paid $20/hr but customers are billed at $60/hr.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That is the damage, though, if the center bought it for 132k. The piece is beyond repair, a total loss, so that 132k is now wasted.

7 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 5

it was an unsold (no value assigned at auction) on loan from a local grate artieste. how much is it really worth, --->

7 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 0

2 years salary? thats what grate artisetes claim is. i say not!

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Your username makes me feel like I shouldn't take this seriously.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

i wouldnt take any of this seriously.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

If your kids break shit in a store, they also stick you with retail pricing. If you don't want to pay that, how about not breaking shit?

7 years ago | Likes 140 Dislikes 17

You expect your community center have 132k "art" on display?

7 years ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 7

If i see a statue i wouldn't let my kids close enough to touch it without being right next to them. Regardless of where it is

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

I agree, but 132k? Who comes up with that? The artist? Way to arbitrary and subjective to use as a basis.

7 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 7

It's a sculpture, that was the selling value of the piece

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 3

If I'd worked on something for two years, you bet your ass I'd charge a handful for it.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It does. The statue isn't destroyed, it's damaged. A repair fee is what they should be talking about.

7 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 18

At most. Kid getting hurt is the actual issue here. The threat over $132K is absurd and just a scare tactic.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Artist said he couldn’t repair it so essentially it’s damaged beyond repair aka destroyed

7 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 2

He also said he wasn't interested in repairing it. Chances are it can be repaired, it's just not worth it.

7 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 2

Ability *and* desire. So it cannot be repaired, and even if it could, he has no interest. Conjunctive, can't treat it as a disjunctive.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

He made it originally, he could repair it. He just doesn't want to.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

There's plenty of mismanagement here. The parents weren't managing their kids, and whoever was running the show didn't manage security.

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

If it's not worth fixing, it's also not worth bankrupting a family of humans. Call me old fashioned.

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 5

Imagine spending 2 years on your work and getting hit with "lol sorry a 5 year old broke it, no money for you."

7 years ago | Likes 55 Dislikes 5

This is why you have insurance

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

I make video games. I like your narrative because a variation of it has definitely happened to me. I didn't try to put the kid on foodstamps

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Honestly if the artist could spin it like “it was worth $130k, but I will be the bigger person” he’d get lots of publicity. Just my thoughts

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Wont put food on that table. Materials arnt free either.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

But the publicity could spur more commissions.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Listed sale price but he loaned it to a community center? Then declared it "beyond my desire" to repair? Dude knew it would never sell 1/2

7 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 9

And this is his way of getting his boring ass sculpture paid for after he used is as a tax break.

7 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 8

Yeah, bro. He used his mind powers on that poor family to make the parents ignore the kid and to make the kid misbehave. Evil sculptor.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

No. He's just trying to seize the opportunity that's been presented to him.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

He donated it and made up a price for a tax write off. He couldn't sell it so he made up a price and gave it away. Now he wants to cash in

7 years ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 10

You can do that?

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

And here I've been paying taxes like a sucker all these years.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

If you spent two years on something and then donated it away and some five year old broke it, I would be pretty annoyed and want payment.

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 6

If he "gave it away" then he no longer owns it and has no claim to it.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

I know that, but it's obvious someone needs to get reparations for the object's destruction and it's silly to pay the center (1/?)

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You gave it away. You don't have grounds to want payment.

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 4

How? If I spent two years making a gift for a friend and a random kid breaks it immediately due to negligence, I would want payment (1/?)

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 5

If they can't afford it, they should lower it, but it's not unreasonable to ask people to pay what you need to undo the damage they caused.

7 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 11

Arts "value" is very ethereal, unfortunately. The cost to commission a replacement or repair (if possible) is fair. Auction cost is not.

7 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 2

ethereal is not the word you are looking for. "extremely delicate and light in a way that seems too perfect for this world"

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You're right, but that definition also fits my intended idea.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

But if it can be sold for $132k, it's worth $132k. Not fair to rip off the artist

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 5

But it couldn't be sold for 132k or he would have sold it instead of loaning it to a community center.

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

The thing is that it Can't be sold for 132k. Nobody wanted it.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Assets are always valued at price of purchase, not potential retail value. Just putting a price tag on something doesn't increase its value

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

The artist isn't giving back his commission, guy. He's already got his. It's the community centers ledger, and they are partially at fault.

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

But he couldn't sell it so he made up a price and donated it for a tax write off

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Parents are responsible and all, but at the same time, the sculpture doesn't look like something worth $132k

7 years ago | Likes 56 Dislikes 9

Looks like it could be repaired, but the artist says it can't. He also didn't have insurance or an appraisal. He priced it's worth at 132k.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

If I had a potential $132k payday, I would also say "beyond my capabilities and desires to rebuild it"

7 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 2

The sculptor has been paid already. He's turning down a repair pay-day. He doesn't stand to make any money by saying that.

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

Paid by insurance, yeah. That's why he said it couldn't be fixed, so they'd pay him.

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Yea, I'm a bit ignorant of some facts, it seems that he was loaning it to the center? I assumed the center had bought it off him.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Agreed. I’d like to know how much art he has sold before at these prices. I can make anything a put a $100k price tag on it, doesn’t mean-

7 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 0

- anyone is going to buy it.

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

Good point.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yeah, just because it took the artist a long time to create, that doesn't make it good.

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

But it does make it valuable, because of the man-hours involved in its creation. The artist won't sell the piece for any less, which is fair

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The value comes from what someone is expected to pay for it, and costs involved with creating it.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Time is also a cost

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

He spent two years on it.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Allegedly, and probably not 40 hours a week. Maybe every other weekend for an hour or two.

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

I suppose. But it's fair to pay him reparations for his works destruction, we can all agree on that.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Sure. Material costs and work hours, within reason. I don't see why it should be treated differently from a broken window just b/c it's art.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

Yeah but you can just buy a new window that's exactly the same and it won't take 2 years to install and it isn't worth 132k and it isn't art

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It would be a different matter if this were an irreplaceable historical piece (in which case it would be properly insured too).

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2