Child hit with $132,000 bill for accidentally knocking over sculpture

[denizen_du_marais]

Sue the clip manufacture. clearly their clips were defective.

also i feel children at weddings should be chained up and securely fastened . just not with those clips

[doogly]

@TerryLicia

Define “properly supervised”

I like a functional definition, as with most things. If your kid knocks over the art, they are not properly supervised for the venue to which you have brought them. If the kid can’t tell the difference in appropriate behavior between an art gallery and a chuck e cheese ball pit, the parents’ supervision strategies surely should.

[Heraclito]

@Headache

The insurance company that paid the $132,000 claim wants the parents’ insurance to reimburse them.

Insurance company, you have one job, just do it and shut up. The community center invited these children onto their premises. If you have a problem with that insurer, take it with your insured.

Children running around playing at a wedding reception-- imagine!

[Sludge]

The pedestal kinda screams “climb me” for where it is sited. If the kid had been injured by this unsecured heavy object, this would be a different news story.

Edit: Checking more complete footage… The boy appears to be reaching for a pair of the sculpture’s pronounced features before moving on to hugging it.

5-year-old hugs, causes damage to $132,000 sculpture

That it’s at a community center and the kid was initially going for the boobs has me scanning the footage for Amy Poehler.

[Mister44]

1. Hey, KC is in the news agai-- aw goddamnit!

2. Typically people don’t pay damages for accidents… I think. Gonna rewatch this.

[Medievalist]

@doogly

If your kid knocks over the art, they are not properly supervised for the venue to which you have brought them. If the kid can’t tell the difference in appropriate behavior between an art gallery and a chuck e cheese ball pit, the parents’ supervision strategies surely should.

@anotherone

Lyons, the artist, said: ‘I want to be reimbursed for the amount of time that I spent on it and for what I think it is worth.’

Somebody’s got a swelled head.

[Heraclito]

@doogly

I like a functional definition, as with most things. If your kid knocks over the art, they are not properly supervised for the venue to which you have brought them. If the kid can’t tell the difference in appropriate behavior between an art gallery and a chuck e cheese ball pit, the parents’ supervision strategies surely should.

The venue offered itself up a place for wedding receptions, and presumably accepted money for doing so. It is well known that wedding receptions are places where young cousins play tag and hide and seek. When a self-styled Louvre level museum/suburban community center starts opening its doors for wedding receptions, this incident is entirely foreseeable. So no, improper supervision does not logically follow from kid knocking over art.

[Papasan]

You’re going up river kid, the grey bar hotel.

[someguy]

Indeed, the parents should* have screamed about the danger the poorly installed art work caused their child, who will no doubt have nightmares, and could have lost an eye, and how they were going to sue if they didn’t get a written apology right now.

*should only because that’s where we are, societally. Not in any moral sense.

[jgs]

Let’s see, $132,000. What else is worth about that much? Oh I know, the parents should offer to keep quiet about having had sex with the President*, sign that over to the insurance company, and let them write off the extra $2,000.

The President* has already established that it’s worth $130,000 to not say you have had sex with him even if you really haven’t (according to him) so it seems legit.

[jeff_dauber]

I have a large collection of museum grade fine art. I loan it out to museums all the time. I have never signed a loan agreement that did not require insurance, either from the museum or the lender.

Now, on to valuation. $132K for a work of fine art puts the artist in an elite class of artists. To hit this price point, you need to have had solo shows as prestigious galleries, been part of major museum shows, and probably would have to have had a solo show in either London or Manhattan. The artist would have to show up in auction records to justify that price as well.

This artist is an unknown, local Kansas City artist (hence showing in a community center). He has no major representation and no CV (a bad sign for high valuation art). He could NEVER get $132K for a work of art, given that record. He made up that number because that is what he FEELS it is worth.

[Shuck]

You’re not the only one.
“It’s beyond my capabilities and desires to rebuild it,” [the artist said].

@anotherone

So that’s what the “artist” says it’s worth and not an objective valuation by an actual art dealer.

I wondered where that valuation came from, and figured it must have come from the artist, considering the context. I assume that was a value he gave (precisely for insurance purposes) when it went on display there (and now he’s likely thinking “ka-ching!”).
It’s weird, looking at his other art online, it seems rather decent - this seems weirdly amateurish. I may be missing something. Also, I find “Aphrodite di Kansas City” unreasonably funny for some reason.

@anon61833566

if the piece was that fragile, why not have a rope around it or otherwise secure it better.

It was probably secure enough from an accidental nudge or collision, but they really weren’t counting on a kid actually climbing on it. Which seems reasonable. It was only a community center - a museum would likely have things more seriously secured, but probably still wouldn’t be counting on kids climbing it (but they also have guards to prevent that). I could also see that the parents weren’t expecting their kid to climb on any art, or that there would be art that would be climbable in the space (anything on a plinth probably would have been safe).

[shylocxs]

Every time I work with artists and the value of art for insurance purposes, we always inflate the amount the work is worth, just in case any damage or destruction might result in a “sale”. Always.

This piece isn’t worth the claim. Not even close. Doing a little research, this artist doesn’t have any gallery representation, nor any referenceable sales figures to establish some comparative value. What a bunch of BS. I feel sorry for the parents.

[d_r]

@Headache

wants the parents’ insurance to reimburse them

I’m pretty sure none of my several insurance policies cover this kind of thing. Maybe the average family in Kansas has more comprehensive coverage.

[shylocxs]

Absolutely.

[shylocxs]

He’s definitely thinking “ka-ching!”

Would probably be the most amount of money he’s made making art in a long time (nothing wrong with that, per se).

[Headache]

The insurance company is doing it’s job. The community center is the damaged party an they have been made whole. Now it’s time for the parent’s homeowner’s insurance company to do its job. If this is a freak event, a payment will be made and that will be the end of it. If this is claim number 7 generated by rowdy kids, then that insurance company probably won’t renew the family’s policy. Sounds fair to me.

[Neovison.vison]

@Shuck

“It’s beyond my capabilities and desires to rebuild it,” [the artist said].

Code for: “You couldn’t pay me enough to rebuild that thing. What? Okay, eleventy billion dollars. That’s not real? Okay, $132,000 then.”

[Urbanacus]

Wow. 3 parties and they’re all guilty! Parents with out of control unsupervised kids, CC who failed to realize they had failed to secure a statue that was a hazard in a space without constant security, and an artist who thinks his work is worth whatever he wants, AFTER it has been destroyed rather than TBD in the marketplace. I say call it quits and everybody walk away.

[Headache]

They probably do. It’s called third party liability and it’s a standard part of homeowner and renter insurance.