It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 08:54 PM
link   
The family should counter sue the county center and statue owner for putting their child in danger from falling objects and use the video as evidence.




posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Sheye

As a parent, I know very well what a child can get into.

Still the responsibility of the parents.

Sticking to my guns on this one.



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 09:05 PM
link   
There have to be a million precedents for this in the legal arena. Any lawyers out there who can give us their perspective?



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat
The family should counter sue the county center and statue owner for putting their child in danger from falling objects and use the video as evidence.


They should hold a press conference with the kid swaddled in bandages around the head, plus wearing a neck and back brace, announcing a counter-suit.



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 09:13 PM
link   

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!


Say a showcase tat wal mart that is not properly secured falls on a kid ? Who fault is that?



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 09:19 PM
link   
hmmm.. I am a sculptor so was trying to get a better view of how this was made. after hunting around a bit I found a pic that shows a little more detail. It 'looks' like a leaded glass piece, this could be why it was priced that way. If so, it probably would be very difficult to repair. However, that being said, if it was glass and weld, it would be extremely heavy and not easily carried away by the attendant-lol!
I gotta agree the kids should have been watched more closely. At the same time, the piece does not look to have been installed correctly. They both have grounds. This will probably be declared a draw haha



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Thats OK, The Community Centre will now be sued for $500,000 by a very smart Lawyer and the Parents for displaying a heavy article on a pedestal that was not secured correctly and has now physically and mentally scarred the young innocent child, who was just doing what young innocent children do, and did not have any malice or mean to topple the "Art".

People sue Walmart etc for slipping over when they are too fat to move.

Lawyers will have a field day with this one........Imagine if a baby or toddler was crawling or walking near this and it fell on them and killed them?

Yes, the Insurance company will be Sh***ing bricks!! alright.



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

When you watch the story it looks like a museum, but if you look the place up it looks like your local YMCA. Yes the YMCA with exercise bikes, and stuff for kids to run and play etc.

My question is why wasn't the artwork secured and/or barricaded like the one next to it. I'm not saying the parents aren't off the hook for not watching their kid, but c'mon. I've tripped so many times in public, I can't even imagine if I tripped and hit something like that. Imagine an elderly person bumping into it. It is very possible. This time it just so happens to be a clumsy curious kid. I am actually really happy the kid was not seriously hurt. No piece of art is worth a kids life. If you think about it, the mom could have been standing right there and a toddler could have gone up and quickly grabbed it and it could have killed them.

If I were the mom and they didn't want to let go of the lawsuit I would seriously re-construct that hideous thing myself.
If you can't beat em' join em. Be like the insurance companies and fix it so it's "good as new" cough cough.

An on another note, why on earth does a community center have a piece of art that valuable in it?



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 09:38 PM
link   

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!


Say a showcase tat wal mart that is not properly secured falls on a kid ? Who fault is that?



2 different things.

A display or anything just falling because it is poorly secured

And a display that a kid messes with that falls on him.



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

I think the only person that showed negligence was the dumbass that put that piece of mannequin art there unsecured and not cordoned off at all. It appears they are suing the wrong people.

$135,000???? Yeah right.



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 09:41 PM
link   
first off why would a "community center" have a piece of (supposed) art worth that much at their facility? most community centers are lucky if their building is worth that much. that right there is worthy of investigation. as it seems to me a community center is generally a tax funded building that any in said community can use. and spending that much on such an apparently fragile piece of possible art seems like it should be looked at as misappropriation of funds.

second why if it is that fragile, and that valuable not just properly secured from accidents. but properly secured from theft. anyone could have easily walked away with it.

third. i don't buy that if damaged it can not be repaired. this is especially true is if as another poster thinks this is a lead and glass structure. there are actually companied that are dedicated to repairing and restoring lead glass objects. yet no matter what it is made of, looking at it, i can not see any valid reason that it can't be repaired. it looks like it was built piece by piece, and thus can just as easily be repaired the same way it was built. it's not like pottery or even a cast object that was always one solid piece (and even those can be repaired normally).

i think the reality is that the insurance company is trying to scare off the parents from suing them for negligence causing injury.



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: starviego

originally posted by: DanDanDat
The family should counter sue the county center and statue owner for putting their child in danger from falling objects and use the video as evidence.


They should hold a press conference with the kid swaddled in bandages around the head, plus wearing a neck and back brace, announcing a counter-suit.


It cant hurt



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: generik

Many times in cases like this a piece is out on loan and has not been bought. Whoever has it on loan is usually responsible for its safe keeping. (You have to price your piece before handing it over to them in case of such an event). It's usually a win-win because a place gets to have 'art' and an artist gets there work out there being seen and nothing bad happens.
Somebody messed up installing this for sure.
Agree too, if it was made, it should be able to be repaired. The artist may not have access to the equipment needed anymore or something. (happened to me on a project once so thought it might be a possibility)
Somebody's on the hook for it, they just don't know who-lol They could probably easily argue down the price if this goes to court.



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I have been in many community centers, but I have never been in one with "art" laying around that is worth 130K.



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 10:57 PM
link   
I thought I read somewhere that this art was classified as something which then requires it to be secured in some way. Like either roping or some sort of structure which would prevent accidents like this from happening.

Negligence perhaps on both sides, maybe have the parents pay the deductible lol.



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 11:04 PM
link   

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!


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..

Who are you to put a price on any ones work? Maybe I feel you're not worth spit and your life isn't worth the oxygen you consume? (Not really though, I don't have any ill will for you). Bottom line is, bad parenting is bad parenting. Again, this comes down to personal responsibility. If the parents had been doing thieir job, this wouldn't have happened.



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: starviego

originally posted by: DanDanDat
The family should counter sue the county center and statue owner for putting their child in danger from falling objects and use the video as evidence.


They should hold a press conference with the kid swaddled in bandages around the head, plus wearing a neck and back brace, announcing a counter-suit.


It cant hurt

Or start a GoFundMe? Apologize and appeal to the sympathy of all you here on ATS who feel parents shouldn't own up to their children's mistake?



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

Yep, the kid got a little too handsy on that with minimal...if any supervision. Parents fault.

No idea on the value. Who's the artist? Do they have verification of sales history? Was the art appraised?

I also agree that if the insurance company is attempting to dig deeper than is required or necessary that the parents should apply a counter-suit. Lower the bill.

Mistakes happen. They come at a cost.



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: rollanotherone

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!


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..

Who are you to put a price on any ones work? Maybe I feel you're not worth spit and your life isn't worth the oxygen you consume? (Not really though, I don't have any ill will for you). Bottom line is, bad parenting is bad parenting. Again, this comes down to personal responsibility. If the parents had been doing thieir job, this wouldn't have happened.


ah but had it been properly secured it also would not have happened



posted on Jun, 16 2018 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Something that valuable should not have been in an unsecured area. Kids will be kids. Parents are responsible for their kids though, but this should go to court, what fool would put that valuable of an object somewhere without some protection....anyone could be too close and stumble and break it.

I think this is the responsibility of whomever put it there and allowed it to be there without protection. If the kid had crossed a barrier than I would say that the parents were more liable. Why wasn't that thing insured if it was out in public like that, that kid could have gotten seriously hurt when it toppled.




top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join