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 ...
City is lucky no one got injured or they’d be the ones paying a lot more than $100k.
I get the feeling that the city spent nothing on this.... thing. The "artist" probably had a connection, and got his "art" displayed. Any inquiries, they'd get told the $132k price tag. The city gets to have something to display; the "artist" gets to show his wares; no money exchanged. Along comes a boy and his hug, and now all of a sudden, ins co wants the list price, because the city wants the list price, because the artist is demanding it from the city. Bottom line: No money has exchanged hands, no taxpayer dollars spent.
In Oregon, it’s REQUIRED BY LAW that a certain percent of projects goes to “art”...
Was the statue offensive to any identifiable group? Judges call that ‘free speech’ these days.
The kid will not be held liable. The parents may not be held liable, and if they are, only to a very low percentage. If they have insurance the insurance appointed lawyer is likely to offer $1,000.00. But before they do, they will take discovery against the city and the artist and make them all look like fools at deposition. The overwhelming fault lies with the failure to secure the statue. Also, when the artist allowed the city to display the large, unstable statute WITHOUT the artist requiring the city to secure it, if that is the case, the artist assumed the risk of damage.
The $132,000 figure is pulled out of the artist’s butt. Any jury will probably be able to rule on the value of the statute, as well as the impairment to the value caused by the kid toppling it. I don’t see it coming to the cost of Disneyland vacation for a family of four.
I think the artist is trying to get a windfall. No pun intended. The artist says the statue is “unique”. Well, now it is more unique.
If the statue fell on the family wouldn’t they sue the facility. Family was responsible so they need to pay
Why hasn’t this child’s parents Gone to the DA’s office with their Lawyer and Filed Formal Criminal Charges against them for “Child Endangerment” and “reckless endangerment”???
Clearly the Statue was UNSECURED and Placed in a Negligent Manner. It could Injured or Killed someone, fortunately the Child Survived this Gross Negligence.
Why does a “community center” have a statue worth $132K? And who says it was worth $132K?
Our small town in NC allows local artists to display their work in public places for free. Artists submit their work to an arts committee which decides which pieces will be displayed and where. City and county government buildings, restaurants, Dr, lawyer, and insurance offices, as well as other businesses. All the art work is for sale so it is a win win situation. Local artists get the exposure with potential sales and government and businesses get free carefully chosen rotating artwork.
This is the city’s responsibility not the child’s. The statue should have been better secured and protected. The child could have been injured.
Yes the kid was at fault.
Yes the parents should pay.
No I dont care how many people here are now acting like libs because the kid is “cute” and thus the city should have anticipated someone breaking the statue despite it not happening before.
“Why do government officials see the need to spend hard-earned taxpayer money on $132k statues when I’m sure there are some potholes to fill or police cars to buy?”
I can only guess you realize how dumb that read after you hit post, right?
If you take your hellions, the vile fruit of your teeming loins to an art gallery the little hellions need to be kept under supervision.
For those blaming the parents for failure to supervise, I would suggest that you get off your high horses and ask yourself this: how many of you in those circumstances would have foreseen the statue falling from the simple act of 5 y.o. hugging it? Under the circumstances, none of you would have because you would have expectations that if it is publicly displayed that it is physically secured. Who expects statues in public areas to topple over at a mere touch? If you were at a private residence, that would be a different situation.
Yes, I am a dumbass.
It should be the responsibility of the city government to properly secure that statue... what if it fell and killed someone .. obviously it as poorly placed or a small child couldn’t have done any damage. Stupid govt officials!
In California at least there’s a limit on the parents liability for the negligence of their minor child. 15k last I looked
The kid was climbing on it like he was in a jungle gym. Totally the parent’s fault.
I doubt it if the city actually paid that amount for the statue. That likely represents the "replacement" cost. I am sure the artist is a greedy enough capitalist to increase is charges in such a situation.
That aside, your point is valid.
Yes. He probably said to the kid on the right of the video, "Watch this!"
Clearly negligence on the part of whoever thought it would be a good idea to display the statue in a dangerous manner.
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.