City bills Parents $132,000, after 5 year old damages glass sculpture.... But Governments SHOULD NOT Have Unprotected Expensive Artwork, Amirite?

The piece of art, “Aphrodite di Kansas City,” was on display at an Overland Park community center. The art was unprotected AND uninsured free for anyone to touch and even had a step-up right in front of it, as you'd often might see for little kids. The 5 year old wraps his arms around it (his mom thinks to hug it), and the art tipped onto the 5 year old, he controls it and attempts to put it back, when (to zolfie) the large glass sculpture breaks off from the base and falls to the ground.

Kansas city bills parents $132G after child damages glass sculptureA city in Kansas is demanding $132,000 from the parents of a 5-year-old boy who knocked over a glass sculpture, the Kansas City Star reports.http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/16/kansas-city-bills-parents-132000-after-child-damages-glass-sculpture.html
Zolfies avatar Art
3 20
This user has deactivated their account.

You mean in the video? (there is a video in the article, I couldn't pull it out and just post it)...

I don't think those ladies even noticed the kids until it was too late... and in the video the dad (or adult male) seemed to be alright with the kids touching the art (and the art thing has a step there that looks like it's for little kids to step on)

This user has deactivated their account.

I don't understand leaving a $10K piece of uninsured artwork completely unprotected (you can see case over a few of the other items) and not guarded. I don't even see a sign that says "Don't Touch the Artwork" which is bare minimum... then a step stool added.

This just seems like horrible way to hold expensive artwork... with anyone clumsy around, much worse with children possible around.

And this thing was $132K... aren't you going to protect it somehow? Insure it and don't touch signs as minimum!

The court should award a percentage of responsibility to the parents and the rest the city. Neither should clean up on this one. The statue could be considered an attractive nuisance and the city should have put up safeguards for it.

This user has been banned.

Yes, at minimum make it so it can't not have been picked up / moved by a 5 year old (or 10 year old for that matter)... and insured.

This user has been banned.

Do we know that one of those women were their mother? ... at first I thought so, but the kids and the women never interact like you would think a parent would, before or after.

This user has been banned.

Alright, I didn't realize one of those was the mother.

I thought there would of been some sort of interaction, which there didn't seem to be on cameras in the article playing... where clearly they talked with a male some (which I assumed was the dad)

City is lucky the art didn't fall on the kid!
I don't think the city has a winnable case.

@Budwick City is lucky the art didn't fall on the kid! I don't think the city has a winnable case.

Great point, when he first lifted it, all the weight went back on him, and I thought the boys was about to be knocked off balanced and if he was, then the sculpture and it's full weight would of landed on top of him.

I'm not sure if the Parents are completely innocent, but the city certainly were negligent of common sense in protecting their 130K+ artwork... and the parents shouldn't be forced to pay the entire bill.

I am all for parents keeping their kids under control, but this was a wedding reception and that is not the place to have unsecured artwork. Plus the liability if the kid or someone else got hurt? Not smart at all.

Children need to be on leash. Good deal that family is screwed cause either they were not paying attention or the kid is a monster either way it is the fault of the parents.FOUND-THIS-https://www.foxnews.com/us/kans...lass-sculpture

A lot of parents don't watch their children,But it should have been protected in a case.
The child could have been hurt,it should have been anchored down.

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.