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

This happened in my home town, overland park ks. Suburb of Kansas city.

Wedding guests at a community center were saying their goodbyes to the bride and groom when their 5 year old boy accidentally knocked over a sculpture that fell on him and broke.

It was all caught on surveillance video and after w few days the parents got a letter from the insurance company saying they owed $132,000 .

ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR THIS.



Now remember this is not in a museum it is in a community center, it is not roped off or even secured to the wall .

The artist says that took him two years to create and he could not repair it.

I would like to know if he has ever sold a piece of art for anywhere near that. And who would put that in a community center unless you were hoping this would happen?

The Parents say it should have been cordoned off better and I agree, the insurance says they are negligent and owe the money..

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.

abcnews.go.com...

I'll make them two for $132,000.

a reply to: notsure1

You break it, you buy it.

Parents should have watched their little monster better.

No sympathy.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I'll make them two for $132,000.

Right? It looks like an unfinished mannequin..

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: notsure1

You break it, you buy it.

Parents should have watched their little monster better.

No sympathy.

Normally I would agree. But not in a community center where kids pretty much have free reign..

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: notsure1

You break it, you buy it.

Parents should have watched their little monster better.

No sympathy.

Normally I would agree. But not in a community center where kids pretty much have free reign..

If it was in a play area with slides and balls and toys, I would agree.

This was in the lobby area.


Parents should own up to their brats!

a reply to: notsure1


The insurance company is probably #ting bricks right now, because it didn't first ensure the safety of the piece it insured for 132K. The insurance company should have protected their investment and made sure the valuables were bolted down, roped off and out of reach of clever toddlers in a community center venue.

It didn't look particularly damaged to me when someone was hauling it in the surveillance vid.

Also, from what I can tell, is the kid bumped it/the stand a TINY bit. Then it toppled. It's not a matter of a wild kid rampaging, because it doesn't look to be the case. It looks like an ill-secured piece of "art" wobbling and falling on someone. Maybe they should just own up, call it even and secure the art next time.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: notsure1

You break it, you buy it.

Parents should have watched their little monster better.

No sympathy.

Normally I would agree. But not in a community center where kids pretty much have free reign..

If it was in a play area with slides and balls and toys, I would agree.

This was in the lobby area.


Parents should own up to their brats!

This is why we have insurance.. I think they would have a case against the community center for hurting the child.

If a kid gets hurt on my property because my mailbox wasnt secure or whatever my insurance is going to pay them.

If this piece of "Art", and I use the term loosely, is worth that much, then why isnt it in a case or even secured to the stand somehow? Shouldnt that mitigate at least some of the financial responsibility of the family?

I agree parents should be responsible for their children, but that seems quite a large number for them to pay imho.

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: notsure1

You break it, you buy it.

Parents should have watched their little monster better.

No sympathy.

Normally I would agree. But not in a community center where kids pretty much have free reign..

If it was in a play area with slides and balls and toys, I would agree.

This was in the lobby area.


Parents should own up to their brats!

This is why we have insurance.. I think they would have a case against the community center for hurting the child.

If a kid gets hurt on my property because my mailbox wasnt secure or whatever my insurance is going to pay them.

Exactly. IMO, the parents have a better case than the center's insurance does. Unsecured & potentially dangerous is unsecured and potentially dangerous. The thing appears to be made of wire. Had a 5 year old's eyeball be poked/scratched by this thing, people would be clamoring to hold the community center's collective feet to the fire over it.

a reply to: notsure1

We have insurance because people don't own up to anything any more.


Yes, it should have been secured.


But if the parents had been watching their kid, this would not have happened. Yes, you have to insure because parents are feckless *blanks* nowadays, but the onus belongs on them.

originally posted by: notsure1

The artist says that took him two years to create and he could not repair it.

Spent 2 years with this thing and hasn't a clue how to make repairs with the materials huh?

Sounds legit.

What if it would have hurt the child?
More like the parents should sue for injuries to the child

It was unsafe and obviously wasn’t secured very well to fall that easily.

Besides, it’s ugly

Good ole fashioned insurance fraud at its finest.

That piece is 100% not worth that sort of money. If it is, perhaphs the artist should have sold it first and donated the proceeds to the county.

Then they could have instead opted for a nice vase or a potted plant, and walked away with $131,970.

a reply to: notsure1

Good ole fashioned insurance fraud at its finest.


a reply to: notsure1

I saw an interview with the mom on my local news saying he was slightly hurt and was complaining that she never got asked if he was ok..

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: notsure1

You break it, you buy it.

Parents should have watched their little monster better.

No sympathy.

Normally I would agree. But not in a community center where kids pretty much have free reign..

If it was in a play area with slides and balls and toys, I would agree.

This was in the lobby area.


Parents should own up to their brats!

132,000 though? They cant be held liable for that much. I cant believe you would even think that lol.

Its a bunch of wire..

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: notsure1


The insurance company is probably #ting bricks right now, because it didn't first ensure the safety of the piece it insured for 132K. The insurance company should have protected their investment and made sure the valuables were bolted done, roped off and out of reach of clever toddlers in a community center venue.

Agreed. This is a defensive measure to hide negligence. That piece of artwork wasn't secured properly, and was a real safety hazard if it could topple over like that. It could have crushed a baby or toddler. In a real museum it would be mounted in an alcove or on a square pedestal with a glass box. Otherwise roped off by a least one meter in every direction.

That piece didn't shatter into a thousand pieces. I couldn't see many fragments, so those could easily be glued back on if there were any. Restoration experts can handle any material from any century. I think the insurance company is just trying it on and scam the parents.

a reply to: DBCowboy

But if the parents had been watching their kid, this would not have happened. Yes, you have to insure because parents are feckless *blanks* nowadays, but the onus belongs on them.

Yes and no...you can’t expect any human to constantly keep their eye on a five year old if they have other children or are even at an event where they will be socializing. That’s an impossible task with a five year old at a function such as this.

This venue should have known that ( look joey .. a statue with boobs.. go get it 😆).. and it should have been properly secured. My guess is that venue may end up paying out to the family.