First, the $132,000 value will have to be properly assessed and I'm guessing that the reported value is grossly exaggerated.
Second, Kansas is a contributory negligence state, so the negligence of others including the plaintiff has to be considered and reduces any amount that the plaintiff can claim. Any competent attorney will make whoever didn't secure that statue seem to be the biggest moron who ever lived. The attorney should be able to convince a jury that the city was grossly negligent in not securing the statue. I'm not an attorney but typically any plaintiff who acted with gross negligence is precluded from suing others.
A jury will likely have parents who understand how easy it is to momentarily lose track of a 5 y.o. in social event like a wedding reception. Even great parents have done so and things can happen quickly. I'm guessing that experienced parents realize how easy this can occur and will reduce the Goodman's negligence share dramatically.
I am not an attorney, either. But I have been made aware of the attractive nuisance doctrine, and to my untrained brain it seems it might apply.