LogFAQs > #903392699

So this is funny because this is actually what I do for a living.

I'm not sure what the state laws are there but sometimes parents can be held vicariously liable for the negligent actions of their children or for negligent supervision of their children.

I had a claim once where I had a child climb on an unsecured cabinet that was top heavy while the parents were doing a final walkthrough on a home they were renting and they weren't supervising their children. The cabinet fell on the 4 year old causing a skull fracture and she has partial permanent hearing loss for the rest of her life. I wanted to put the majority of the negligence on her parents for failure to supervise their children and bar recovery because I feel the duty is on the parents to supervise their kids as the custodians of the children in order to maintain their safety rather than the landlord to secure the furniture as the cabinet had been there for years and no other child had injured themselves on the piece of furniture. But due to state case law, I was unable to due so because in that particular state I was unable to hold the parents liable for the actions of their children and my section manager felt that if I were to hold them liable for negligent supervision we would not succeed in court.

In this case, the insurance company probably feels since they have surveillance footage showing that the parents aren't even in the same room as the children in the museum that they have a good case to show negligent supervision. Why are the parents letting their kids have free range in a museum? It's not assumed that a museum is going to bolt down fragile sculptures. And that is not common or proper practice when you're displaying museum quality art pieces.

I absolutely think they should have to be responsible for this claim. This process is called subrogation. The insurance company paid the claim on behalf of the museum to the artist and now they want to be repaid for the damages. The parents were not supervising their small children at all. They brought their children to a place where their children obviously weren't prepared to go based on the way they are seen to behave in the video climbing all over the art pieces and running around with the parents no where to be seen. And I can't believe the mother seems shocked to hear that the insurance company thinks she is negligent. Of course she is negligent. You can't just let your children have free reign over an area because they are technically allowed somewhere. That's ridiculous.

If she has a homeowner's insurance policy, she should turn this claim over to them. If her limit is only $100,000 they can try to negotiate the claim down to that much or at the very least have her insurance offer the limit and then their balance would only be the remainder. Chances are that her insurance company will offer the limit to settle the claim and the museum's insurance company will take it because they know the individual policy holder doesn't have enough assets to cover the remainder. But seeing as she thinks she's not even negligent here I wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't even have homeowner's insurance.

I voted "other" based on the explanation above.
---

https://imgur.com/4ihiyS2
"I am not gay! Can't you get that through your head? I am very much aroused at the site of a naked woman!" - Dan0429