Posted on 06/16/2018 6:32:18 AM PDT by BenLurkin
Sarah Goodman says she and her family were at a wedding reception at a Kansas Community Center when her son wandered into the main hallway where the statue was placed.
Surveillance video captured the moment when the child appeared to hug the statue, causing it to fall over. When she ran over to help, she was told the sculpture's price tag.
City leaders do believe the situation was an accident, but they still think the Goodmans should pay for the damaged statue.
(Excerpt) Read more at news4sanantonio.com ...
And some wander into a wading pool and drown.
As a grandparent with young grandchildren, if that statue was so precarious as to fall by a young child, they dodged a bullet, for if that statue had fallen on, and hurt the child, they would be open to a huge lawsuit.
The responsibility of the institution is to provide a safe environment for the public as well as protection and securing its collection.
This IMO is a wake up call for the institution, and they better get their house in order. I am still not sure the parents could not sue the institution for gross negligence.
“City is lucky no one got injured or they’d be the ones paying a lot more than $100k.”
Actually, if you pay close attention to what is happening as the 5-yr-old loses control and the statue falls on him, he is struggling to keep it from falling but fails. When he gets up he takes a swipe at his head, then kinda stretches and begins to take a kick at it before stumbling off. The little fella was hurt, maybe back injury, head injury, upper body who can say. They need to take him to see a doctor at Childrens’ Mercy Hospital in KC, MO. The statue weighs about 50-100 lbs I’d say.
THEN counter-sue them.
“THEN counter-sue them”
For what?!
Failure to control and supervise your child?
Why is it societies responsibility to police someone’s kid?
Why does a city need a $132,000 dollar statue in the first place?
What a load of BS. The negligence is not on the parents nor the little kid. If a five year old could accidentally topple it that easily it was an accident waiting to happen.
This is like Lisa in “David & Lisa”!
Except she didn’t break anything.
“As a grandparent with young grandchildren, if that statue was so precarious as to fall by a young child, they dodged a bullet, for if that statue had fallen on, and hurt the child, they would be open to a huge lawsuit.”
Why are you so irresponsible that you aren’t watching you kids so they aren’t climbing on stuff they aren’t supposed to be climbing on?
That space isnt called “community playground and jungle gym”.
Do people on this site let their kids climb on stuff at the store?
“The responsibility of the institution is to provide a safe environment for the public as well as protection and securing its collection.”
And what is YOUR responsibility? To screw around, not watch your kids, and then blame other people for incidents like this?
I hope to never hear anyone on this site ever again complain about “didndonuffins”, because apparently it’s been adopted by us as well.
Pay half. I can see the museum being at fault for not being more careful with their own items, but the boy DID break something, which is a big expense, so yes they should be liable.
If a 5 year old is allowed to climb and hug on something that isnt designed for a kid to be climbing and hugging on, then it IS negligence on the part of a parent.
If your kid is in an antique store and, climbs up on a bookshelf with expensive vases on in, and then topples the whole thing, is it the fault of the shopkeeper for having the nerve to have a shelf that wasn’t designed for your kid to climb on? Do you think you dont have to pay for that stuff?
Just say the little tyke was a precocious SJW and thought the statue was a Confederate general.
An accident waiting to happen.
City’s fault.
Next case.
This could be a clever insurance scam:
Put a worthless statue in harm’s way.
Over-insure it.
Wait for the inevitable
I sort of agree the idea that the statue could have hurt or even killed the child and it’s not entirely the kids fault.
At MOST the parents should only have to pay the deductable.
The Goodmans did not suffer any damage, so what redress would they be seeking if they tried to sue anyone else over this incident? The venue's allegation is that the Goodmans failed to control their son, who then toppled the statue. The Goodmans' Homeowners policy should provide their defense of the personal liability claim that has been brought against them.
Gives new meaning to: you break it, you bought it.
Expensive at $132K per lesson.
The city will be withdrawing their demand, when it is pointed out that the statue was a tempting hazard for the child and that the child could have been hurt.
I am amazed so many FRers are deferring fault here.
What would you think, if something expensive for you was wrecked by a child innocently playing while apparently the parents pay no attention? Would you laugh off your automobile ending up totaled when the child lifted the brake or some such out in your driveway? What if you had some set-up in your house he managed to tumble and destroy?
Or would you only blame yourself for having the temerity to leave doors unlocked? Really, come now.
Sure the kid meant no harm, but it’s still expensive for you.
It’s only decent to assume some responsibility. And seems this is an absentee parent here, too.
How do you know it wasn’t donated? At least as part of some wealthy sponsor’s trust?
then it IS negligence on the part of a parent.
******************
Well mom was sitting on her butt in a chair while the child
was running around. Actually there were two children playing
in the area. Mom didn’t even get up fast when the topple
occurred and certainly didn’t run over as the article says.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.