Poll of the Day > These parents being put on the hook for $132,000 were being negligent... right?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I just came across this news story about a kid knocking over a statue in Kansas, and the parents being shocked to later receive a $132,000 bill. At first, my thought was that this is unreasonable, and it was just a misfortune that happened to them. But after watching the video, I think the parents were completely being negligent and are lucky the kid wasnt hurt. Just curious if anyone shares my opinion on this, or if Im in the minority:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmVuDEOhs4c" data-time="
---

other: they should have been watching their kid but they shouldn't have to pay.
---

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.
---

Jen0125 posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLZrQGW2_9k" data-time="

---

Jen0125 posted...

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

Interesting, glad to get your take on it. I sold insurance for a few years, so I was also thinking about how they hopefully have a policy with at least $100,000 in liability.

But yeah, when the mother said something to the effect of I cant believe theyd call me negligent, I blurted out to myself Thats the definition of negligence! Even if she is a great parent 99% of the time, she was absolutely negligent in that case.
---

Yeah letting your small child run around and create havoc at a art gallery is cool. Its totally like a kids playground. Dumb bitch isn't even within view of the kid.

You can't leave a kid unsupervised and allowed to run around in a gallery-kids don't care about the value just that it looks fun to play with. They dun goofed.
Also, why would you take them? Find someone to look after them because you can't enjoy that sort of thing with kids.
---

Idk. I guess it depends on some other things. The way the one guy said that it wasnt an interactive piece makes me honk they may have had those. And if the kid didnt know the difference, then that could be a thing. Also, was the kid alone because they just werent watching him? Or was he alone because he was on the way back to his parents from like going to the bathroom? Im also surprised the other adults didnt say anything. But maybe they didnt see him, I guess... It was also difficult to tell the age. Idk. I think it might have been a mistake. But we didnt really hear where the parent were or what they were doing, which could probably make a difference in how I feel about it. So, Im not too sure...
---

Shit parents, pay up.
---

Syntheticon posted...

Find someone to look after them because you can't enjoy that sort of thing with kids.

Well it was at a Community Center so there certainly could have been other stuff there that was appropriate for kids.

Eh, it's noted as a community center so.. idk. The parent certainly seems negligent (while kids can run off from you, she probably could have gone to greater lengths to keep him with her since she knows art is on display), but if it is a place that routinely has young children running around (and there was another unaccompanied boy in the video -- although it could have been his brother >_>) then there should be stronger precautions. In general, though, insurance companies will do whatever they can to get out of paying a claim so... there's kinda that. I mean, had a janitor accidentally knocked it over, would they hit the janitor with a $132k bill? When does the insurance actually kick in?

Like 90% of the time, my approach is if the kid breaks it, the parent bought it. However, if it was something really valuable, it seems like there should be more protection. Then again, it was negligence like this that got Harambe killed, so fuck that parent.
---

@Zeus, the insurance company did pay it. They're trying to subrogate against who they feel is the responsible party to recoup for the damages they paid out.
---

Parents are 100% responsible, keep an eye on your kids if you dont want to pay out for damages
---

Here's another example for anyone who doesn't think the parents are responsible.

Let's say these people are walking through your neighborhood. The parents allow the children to run very far ahead of them to the point where they can't even see their children anymore. These children run up to your house and damage the siding on your house so badly you need to get part of it re-sided. Well, when you file a claim on your insurance they decide they can't match the siding so they have to re-side your whole home.

Do you think the parents shouldn't be responsible just because you don't have a fence? You know your house is in an area where kids may come around. Why didn't you do more to "protect your house?" It's just out there in the open where kids could come unsupervised and vandalize it.

It just doesn't work that way.
---

Patents should be sentenced to pay and subjected to an airplane slap line.

Well I think there's some shared responsibility, it's not as if you can be in full control of the actions of a child if they get free of you, though you should always be watching.

The thing is the little kid doesn't even realize the gravity of what they've done yet them and their family will have to pay big for it and that kind of makes me a little uncomfortable. That's more money than most people make in several years.
---

KamariaK posted...

The thing is the little kid doesn't even realize the gravity of what they've done yet them and their family will have to pay big for it and that kind of makes me a little uncomfortable. That's more money than most people make in several years.

As its been mentioned, if they have homeowners insurance, its likely a deductible. Depending on the carrier, they could be dropped after the claim is filed and paid, though.
---

Homeowner's insurance doesn't have a deductible for the liability coverage. They really should just turn this claim over if they have a policy.
---

Jen0125 posted...

Homeowner's insurance doesn't have a deductible for the liability coverage. They really should just turn this claim over if they have a policy.

Doh... shoulda remembered that. Similarly, auto policies only requires deductibles for comp or collision, so duh.
---

Make the kid work as the janitor for the gallery to pay off the debt
---

Yes, kid was 5 and unsupervised, and CLIMBED on to a work of art. It wouldn't be bad if all he did was accidentally run into it and made it fall over, but climbing on it is something he should have been taught to not do, and something that should have never happened
---

Where was the mother (and/or father) at the time? Why isn't the father mentioned in the interview either? They just say family, not parents.
---

SirPikachu posted...

Yes, kid was 5 and unsupervised, and CLIMBED on to a work of art. It wouldn't be bad if all he did was accidentally run into it and made it fall over, but climbing on it is something he should have been taught to not do, and something that should have never happened

I definitely agree with this train of thought. It's not like it was a legit accident where the kid tripped, fell into exhibit and knocked it over. He stops, looks at it, starts grabbing on and trying to climb it. On top of that the mother was totally negligent in her parental responsibilities to keep her kids under control.
---

The kids were running wild while the parents were completely oblivious. That being said, I have a hard time believing that that eyesore is worth $132k.
---

is that was he was doing? trying to climb it?

hard to say what his intent was for sure, but really the first thing he does is grab its boobs, and the next thing he does is pulls it forward and puts his face between the boobs...

note that the video has the recording play at 2x speed, so play it at 0.5x speed to see it at regular speed.
---

They should pay.

Tired of irresponsible parents not properly raising their children and then cry the instant they are held responsible for their unsupervised children's actions.

Stupid THOT was irresponsible and was rightfully called so.
---

rjsilverthorn posted...

Well it was at a Community Center so there certainly could have been other stuff there that was appropriate for kids.

Since it was a community center I have to wonder why that center is spending money on art (or art insurance), rather then helping the community with it instead? It doesn't seem that expensive art belongs there.

Playsaver posted...

It doesn't seem that expensive art belongs there.

Why not?
---

Playsaver posted...

rjsilverthorn posted...

Well it was at a Community Center so there certainly could have been other stuff there that was appropriate for kids.

Since it was a community center I have to wonder why that center is spending money on art (or art insurance), rather then helping the community with it instead? It doesn't seem that expensive art belongs there.

The main purpose of a "community center" is typically a social/gathering place for the community. They often have events like face painting day, community awareness seminars, family activities, rented out for weddings, parties, etc. They also allow groups to hold charity events where they feed poor people, collect clothes, etc. but the center itself is, more often than not, just the place where these groups do their charity event rather than the actual provider of the charity.

Community centers for more upscale communities frequently showcase art. Especially from local artists. They don't own the art though. It's almost always on loan from the artist. They don't pay $132,000 for a display piece. They just give the artist a place to show it.


---