LOL....sweet pic, at link, of boy hugging the statue.
Nothing malicious, just a hug.
Shame on this facility for not properly securing, or secluding, their valuables from the public....especially when allowing said facility to be used as a wedding reception venue.
Not the fault of the kid.
Items like this are termed, “an attractive nuisance”.
It is the museum’s fault for not securing it, either physically or with some barrier. Things this heavy are a danger to the public and young children specifically.
The Goodmans need to call their Homeowners insurance carrier and file a Personal Liability claim.
*sigh* ok I am torn on this.
The child is at fault.. and yet so is the city in my opinion.
The city will have insurance 100% for sure. The parents should only have to pay for the deductable.
I agree. They made no provisions to protect their property, other than insure it. The insurance company should pay for it, as that is what insurance is for. If the insurance company has language in their insurance policy specifically stating they won't be responsible under these types of circumstances, then it should fall on the City.
Time for the parents to lawyer up. Child being hurt both psychologically and perhaps physically. (No I don’t actually believe in frivolous lawsuits…also believe the statue owners should have protected their property from both damage and damage to the public)
You can’t put your valuable art in a non protected environment and expect it to stay that way. I keep my much less pricey firearms in a safe. Though I consider some of them much more valuable.
Mrs. L ran a facility that did 50-60 weddings per summer for almost 20 years. There is no way on God’s green Earth she would have allowed something this valuable in the room.
People get really, really stupid at weddings.
Every contract had a clause that held the party holding the event responsible for any damage. I have a hard time believing this place didn’t have something similar.
L
The “fault” lies with those who failed to protect it from foreseeable damage.
(as the insurance company would note)
I would then counter sue. The kid could have been crushed by the falling statue. Art museum? Death trap, more likely!
The parents should countersue the city for having such a dangerous, attractive nuisance where a child might be hurt.
Dangerous items like that should be put behind protective barriers.
Ban dangerous statutes - for the children.
That being said - bad parents for not keeping their child under control in public.
On unsecured display in the main walk way of a suburban Kansas City community center? No.
The larger question is... 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? The amount of waste and extravagance in government is staggering.
Liability depends on local law. The purported value of $132,000 seems silly — it can probably be repaired with some glue and duct tape, and nobody would be the wiser. If it was such a valuable object, it should have been roped off or otherwise protected.
The larger question is... 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? The amount of waste and extravagance in government is staggering.
The art was titled "Aphrodite di Kansas City" and was the work of Kansas City artist Bill Lyons. He said it was submitted to an art exhibition and sale that began April 6 and ended June 10. He valued the piece at $132,000, and that was the asking price.Lyons said the piece was made of small pieces of glass and other materials and was unique.
He said the project, which took two years to complete, was the most ambitious piece he has ever done. The back of the head was shattered, and parts of each arm were damaged, to the extent that it cannot be repaired to its original condition, Lyons said. He did not have insurance for the piece.
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article213160979.html#storylink=cpy
--------------------
The artist was asking $132,000 for the statue, displayed it in a public venue, and did not have insurance on it.
Sounds to me like the artist couldn't sell his crap art and is hoping the damages claim will be the big payoff. In my opinion most modern art is no better than high school level work.
Something worth $132,000 wasn’t secured?
People make a big deal about securing their $1000 big-screen TV’s ... the “management” running this place didn’t see any need to secure something worth 132 times as much??
Prediction: Somebody’s soon going to be looking for work elsewhere ...
$132,000? Who’s fault is that?
The thing obviously wasn’t even worth a hug.
This is why you have insurance.
So the city, spent 132,000 on a statue? Whoever did that should be locked up.
The city could have got fine art for free by making the space available to a local artist to display work they would like to sell.
And if it’s so valuable, they placed it in a community center that sponsors weddings and birthday parties?
This is a city scam. Why not put a Ming vase at the entry to the soccer fields, insure the hell out of it, and just wait.
The family needs to discover the boy has developed lifelong autism from the impact of their dangerous display falling on him and countersue.