This is the reason to have all assets as exempt in bankruptcy

[swampwiz]

A "community center" with dangerous works of art that could harm a child wants the parents to pay $132K because the "work of art" fell while the child was interacting with it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/parents-may-pay-132-000-184435556.html

$132K?  How about getting cheaper stuff that way the folks in the community don't have to pay for it the first time?

I say the parents should countersue for having the kid exposed to such danger.

Really, this is one of the out-of-the-blue events, like hitting an inner-city bus, etc., that an individual needs to financially insulate himself from by always being "bankruptable".

[patchyfacialhair]

Hmmm...nah. I blame the parents. Those kids were completely unsupervised and that does not look like a place where you leave your kids unsupervised.

It's a reception venue and community center, not a children's playground. I wouldn't expect it to be 100% child proof, nor should it be. Personal responsibility is a thing, and these folks want to blame other people. I'm glad the kid is fine though. He'll get over his "nightmares."

[abhe8]

Hmm.... No comment on the presents responsibility. But how would one go about protecting assets in a case like this? I'm guessing IRA is safe from bankruptcy?

[nwhiker]

Sure are you could just purchase homeowners or renters insurance and let them take care of the issue. Parents need to supervise their kids.

[Jrr85]

Hmmm...nah. I blame the parents. Those kids were completely unsupervised and that does not look like a place where you leave your kids unsupervised.

It's a reception venue and community center, not a children's playground. I wouldn't expect it to be 100% child proof, nor should it be. Personal responsibility is a thing, and these folks want to blame other people. I'm glad the kid is fine though. He'll get over his "nightmares."

Not having it 100% childproof is one thing.  Having it set up where someone could do $100k+ of damage by bumping into something is another.  I would argue if it was really that valuable, they wouldn't have left it sitting out where a slight bump could damage it. 

[therethere]

Actually the art was on loan so no tax payers money was spent. It is the artist who needs the parents to pay for damaging his art that was for sale. Is it a reliable value? Who knows.


A slight bump? The kid almost tried to do a pull up on the statue... Would you release your kid unsupervised in a pottery store and expect it to be childproofed?!

[Chris22]

$1M umbrella policies are ridiculously cheap.  I bought one when I rented out a house. 

[Jrr85]

Actually the art was on loan so no tax payers money was spent. It is the artist who needs the parents to pay for damaging his art that was for sale. Is it a reliable value? Who knows.


A slight bump? The kid almost tried to do a pull up on the statue... Would you release your kid unsupervised in a pottery store and expect it to be childproofed?!

The kid didn't do a slight bump, but going from the video, it looks like an adult bumping into could knock it over. 

Although come to think of it, this is a great ploy for starving artists.  Loan fragile works to unsuspecting venues and then sue their insurance company for a ridiculous value when it gets broken.  I suspect this community center won't be accepting any more art without a release from the artists if they want to keep their insurance.

[One]

$1M umbrella policies are ridiculously cheap.  I bought one when I rented out a house.

I agree, I have one but It's so cheap i wonder if there's a million ways for the insurance company to get out of paying? I'm worried because the deal seems to good? Anybody ever had one pay out?   

[HBFIRE]

If you read the article, it's the insurance company going after the parents, not the community center.  They're just exhausting every avenue and trying to avoid paying as much as they can, this is not unusual for an insurance company.  I did find the video pretty hilarious, the parents claiming the child was "well supervised".  Sure didn't appear that way at all.

[marion10]

The parents could countersue for an unsafe environment- the statue was no properly secured. I have a friend who does insurance litigation- 99% of the time these things are settled.

[zolotiyeruki]

Yeah, the kids should have been better supervised.  Even if they had been, however, it happened so fast even a vigilant parent wouldn't have been able to stop it.
But $132k for a piece of artwork?  Hogwash.
Leaving a $132k piece of artwork out in the open, where it could be easily damaged or stolen? Not smart.  Seriously, would you leave $132k in cash sitting on a pedestal out in the open in a public space, and just hope that nothing happens to it?

[FIRE@50]

Let's see if I can figure out the Art Insurance business. An insurance company accepts a ridiculous valuation for something that most people wouldn't pay 5 bucks for at a thrift shop, so that they can charge some silly premium to insure it. When a claim is made against the policy, they simply demand that some other insurance company pay for it. All profit and zero liability! Anyone want to bankroll my new business? Can you tell that I hate insurance companies?

[PDXTabs]

$1M umbrella policies are ridiculously cheap.  I bought one when I rented out a house.

It's still good to shelter your assets from bankruptcy. To be more specific, if you kill me in an automobile crash, and it is your fault, you will owe my estate more than $1M.

[expatartist]

Let's see if I can figure out the Art Insurance business. An insurance company accepts a ridiculous valuation for something that most people wouldn't pay 5 bucks for at a thrift shop, so that they can charge some silly premium to insure it. When a claim is made against the policy, they simply demand that some other insurance company pay for it. All profit and zero liability! Anyone want to bankroll my new business? Can you tell that I hate insurance companies?

I have to wonder when the artist gave his valuation of the work. There's no documentation online that would indicate his work has ever fetched 5, let alone 6 figures. He's not on Artsy or any of the other sites that indicate they've sold on the primary or secondary art markets.

[Chris22]

$1M umbrella policies are ridiculously cheap.  I bought one when I rented out a house.

It's still good to shelter your assets from bankruptcy. To be more specific, if you kill me in an automobile crash, and it is your fault, you will owe my estate more than $1M.

I've increased my insurance accordingly.

That said, most of my NW is in retirement accounts and real estate; I was under the impression that those things are generally shielded against judgement (I'm married, joint ownership, blah blah).

Am I missing something else?

[Slow2FIRE]

$1M umbrella policies are ridiculously cheap.  I bought one when I rented out a house.

It's still good to shelter your assets from bankruptcy. To be more specific, if you kill me in an automobile crash, and it is your fault, you will owe my estate more than $1M.

I've increased my insurance accordingly.

That said, most of my NW is in retirement accounts and real estate; I was under the impression that those things are generally shielded against judgement (I'm married, joint ownership, blah blah).

Am I missing something else?

Real estate as in personal primary residence -> depends on the state.  I think some states only protect a specific dollar amount of value of the home.
Real estate as in a second home or rental property -> fair game and not protected at all afaik.

[jim555]

In my state $150,000 of home equity per person is exempt.  IRAs, 401k are exempt.  Pensions, Social Security and annuity payments are also exempt.

[SwordGuy]

Yeah, that kid is at fault.   Kid was unsupervised, parents in another room.

But look at the other kid.  Watch him.  You can tell the other kid knows what his buddy is doing is wrong.

Not an accident.   If I was the artist, I would sue, too.   

[Laserjet3051]

IRAs DO NOT have the same ERISA protections that 401ks do. They do, however, have some protections from creditors/bankruptcy that varies from state to state. Look at your state laws regarding your level of protection.

[Chris22]

$1M umbrella policies are ridiculously cheap.  I bought one when I rented out a house.

It's still good to shelter your assets from bankruptcy. To be more specific, if you kill me in an automobile crash, and it is your fault, you will owe my estate more than $1M.

I've increased my insurance accordingly.

That said, most of my NW is in retirement accounts and real estate; I was under the impression that those things are generally shielded against judgement (I'm married, joint ownership, blah blah).

Am I missing something else?

Real estate as in personal primary residence -> depends on the state.  I think some states only protect a specific dollar amount of value of the home.
Real estate as in a second home or rental property -> fair game and not protected at all afaik.

LOL, my rental property is a rental property because it was too far underwater to sell and we didn't feel like coughing up $25-50k to get rid of it.  So we claw that back at about $6k a year renting it out and wait for the appreciation/pay down lines to cross.

So that house is judgement proof :)

[partgypsy]

I agree, it looks like the kids were not supervised. It sounds like the parents were at a wedding, and were watching the bridal couple leaving. However, where that statue was (basically along a walk area), and how it was "secured" (placed on a pedestal, not fixed in place), anyone could have potentially knocked it over. Sure here it was a 5 year old kid, but it could have just as well been any adult who stumbled or fell. It's not an art gallery, it's a community center, where you assume there are people of all ages, including kids and elderly. Honestly I'm surprised the kid was not more hurt when it fell on him.

For example in our art community center, there is a kimono on display, but it is in a huge glass case. There are other pieces of artwork (stone) that are secured to the base and can be touched by whoever visited. The way that a community center should display art is to  protect both the art work AND the people visiting. Big fail on both counts.
If I was the parent, I would fight back.

[PDXTabs]

It's not an art gallery, it's a community center, where you assume there are people of all ages, including kids and elderly.

^
|
--------- This, right here. Members of the community were in the community center. I am aware of no state in the union where you child knocking anything over, even on purpose, will result in six figures of liability to the parent.

[Samuel]

If you read the article, it's the insurance company going after the parents, not the community center.  They're just exhausting every avenue and trying to avoid paying as much as they can, this is not unusual for an insurance company.  I did find the video pretty hilarious, the parents claiming the child was "well supervised".  Sure didn't appear that way at all.

A different article: 
"All the city did was file an insurance claim," Overland Park communications manager Sean Reilly told CNET in an email. "We are treating this like any other piece of publicly financed city property when it is damaged. For instance, if a street light, traffic signal, police or fire vehicle (is damaged), we work through our insurance carrier who contacts the other party's insurance carrier to seek payment.
"We are NOT seeking payment from the family," Reilly said. "Our carrier is simply wanting to contact their insurance provider. If we do not seek payment from their carrier, taxpayers' money will be used to compensate the artist." https://www.cnet.com/news/for-better-or-for-worse-kid-at-wedding-breaks-132k-art/

Sounds like the city won't go after the parents if their insurance doesn't cover it.

I agree it was a mainly a failure of supervision but to not have that secured to the podium was also negligent. The statue nearly fell on and injured a kid doing easily anticipated kid things.

[Chris22]

If you read the article, it's the insurance company going after the parents, not the community center.  They're just exhausting every avenue and trying to avoid paying as much as they can, this is not unusual for an insurance company.  I did find the video pretty hilarious, the parents claiming the child was "well supervised".  Sure didn't appear that way at all.

A different article: 
"All the city did was file an insurance claim," Overland Park communications manager Sean Reilly told CNET in an email. "We are treating this like any other piece of publicly financed city property when it is damaged. For instance, if a street light, traffic signal, police or fire vehicle (is damaged), we work through our insurance carrier who contacts the other party's insurance carrier to seek payment.
"We are NOT seeking payment from the family," Reilly said. "Our carrier is simply wanting to contact their insurance provider. If we do not seek payment from their carrier, taxpayers' money will be used to compensate the artist." https://www.cnet.com/news/for-better-or-for-worse-kid-at-wedding-breaks-132k-art/

Sounds like the city won't go after the parents if their insurance doesn't cover it.

I agree it was a mainly a failure of supervision but to not have that secured to the podium was also negligent. The statue nearly fell on and injured a kid doing easily anticipated kid things.

It won't be up to the city.  They filed with their insurance.  Their insurance will go after the kid/family.

This is the same reasons it's laughable when MMM says he doesn't need homeowner's insurance because he doesn't invite jerks who would sue him to his house.  All MMM needs is someone who hurts himself on his property (say, working on one of his numerous construction projects) and that person goes to the ER for the injury and involves their own health insurance, and all of the sudden that health insurance is looking to reduce their own payouts at the expense of someone else (MMM).  What the insurance company does is not up to the insured.

[Rosy]

"Well supervised?" Keep tabs on your kids and don't lie about it. They were just hoping to get out of trouble by denying it all - nice example for their kids.
That could have ended up a lot worse with the kid being seriously hurt.

Now the kid has nightmares - doubt that too - just parents influencing their kid to not accept responsibility for their actions - exactly like them! Who me, take responsibility? Squeak.

It's all just insurance company noise and media hype, probably by the parents who are surprised that someone is actually holding their feet to the fire for the actions of their little darling as well as themselves. I hope the artist gets the full $132K that she/he insured that piece for and lots of notoriety and exposure. I'm sure she'll bolt the next art piece to a pedestal:)

[Chris22]

"Well supervised?" Keep tabs on your kids and don't lie about it. They were just hoping to get out of trouble by denying it all - nice example for their kids.
That could have ended up a lot worse with the kid being seriously hurt.

Now the kid has nightmares - doubt that too - just parents influencing their kid to not accept responsibility for their actions - exactly like them! Who me, take responsibility? Squeak.

It's all just insurance company noise and media hype, probably by the parents who are surprised that someone is actually holding their feet to the fire for the actions of their little darling as well as themselves. I hope the artist gets the full $132K that she/he insured that piece for and lots of notoriety and exposure. I'm sure she'll bolt the next art piece to a pedestal:)

When "taking responsibility" has such an outsized cost to it, I'd be looking for ways to shirk it too.  If my kid did $132 or even $1320 of damage, yeah, I'm stepping up, but $132k?  That's ridiculous.  If you fail to secure something super expensive and invite the public in with it accessible, and shit happens, it's on you, man.  If I left $25k in cash sitting on a bench and then screamed at some kid for taking it, is it really on the kid, or on me, the dumbass grownup who should've known better?

[Blonde Lawyer]

If you read the article, it's the insurance company going after the parents, not the community center.  They're just exhausting every avenue and trying to avoid paying as much as they can, this is not unusual for an insurance company.  I did find the video pretty hilarious, the parents claiming the child was "well supervised".  Sure didn't appear that way at all.

A different article: 
"All the city did was file an insurance claim," Overland Park communications manager Sean Reilly told CNET in an email. "We are treating this like any other piece of publicly financed city property when it is damaged. For instance, if a street light, traffic signal, police or fire vehicle (is damaged), we work through our insurance carrier who contacts the other party's insurance carrier to seek payment.
"We are NOT seeking payment from the family," Reilly said. "Our carrier is simply wanting to contact their insurance provider. If we do not seek payment from their carrier, taxpayers' money will be used to compensate the artist." https://www.cnet.com/news/for-better-or-for-worse-kid-at-wedding-breaks-132k-art/

Sounds like the city won't go after the parents if their insurance doesn't cover it.

I agree it was a mainly a failure of supervision but to not have that secured to the podium was also negligent. The statue nearly fell on and injured a kid doing easily anticipated kid things.

It won't be up to the city.  They filed with their insurance.  Their insurance will go after the kid/family.

This is the same reasons it's laughable when MMM says he doesn't need homeowner's insurance because he doesn't invite jerks who would sue him to his house.  All MMM needs is someone who hurts himself on his property (say, working on one of his numerous construction projects) and that person goes to the ER for the injury and involves their own health insurance, and all of the sudden that health insurance is looking to reduce their own payouts at the expense of someone else (MMM).  What the insurance company does is not up to the insured.

Same with MMM's friends.  If they get hurt bad enough, their health insurance company will bring the suit for them.

[Chris22]

If you read the article, it's the insurance company going after the parents, not the community center.  They're just exhausting every avenue and trying to avoid paying as much as they can, this is not unusual for an insurance company.  I did find the video pretty hilarious, the parents claiming the child was "well supervised".  Sure didn't appear that way at all.

A different article: 
"All the city did was file an insurance claim," Overland Park communications manager Sean Reilly told CNET in an email. "We are treating this like any other piece of publicly financed city property when it is damaged. For instance, if a street light, traffic signal, police or fire vehicle (is damaged), we work through our insurance carrier who contacts the other party's insurance carrier to seek payment.
"We are NOT seeking payment from the family," Reilly said. "Our carrier is simply wanting to contact their insurance provider. If we do not seek payment from their carrier, taxpayers' money will be used to compensate the artist." https://www.cnet.com/news/for-better-or-for-worse-kid-at-wedding-breaks-132k-art/

Sounds like the city won't go after the parents if their insurance doesn't cover it.

I agree it was a mainly a failure of supervision but to not have that secured to the podium was also negligent. The statue nearly fell on and injured a kid doing easily anticipated kid things.

It won't be up to the city.  They filed with their insurance.  Their insurance will go after the kid/family.

This is the same reasons it's laughable when MMM says he doesn't need homeowner's insurance because he doesn't invite jerks who would sue him to his house.  All MMM needs is someone who hurts himself on his property (say, working on one of his numerous construction projects) and that person goes to the ER for the injury and involves their own health insurance, and all of the sudden that health insurance is looking to reduce their own payouts at the expense of someone else (MMM).  What the insurance company does is not up to the insured.

Same with MMM's friends.  If they get hurt bad enough, their health insurance company will bring the suit for them.

Sorry, yes, that was my point.

[GuitarStv]

If my child walked over to a neighbour's driveway and spent a couple hours scratching doodles into all the panels of his vintage Maserati with a key I'd expect a pretty hefty, multi-thousand dollar bill.  It doesn't matter that I think the Maserati is ridiculous, and wouldn't pay more than a couple grand for it personally.  I'm responsible for watching my kids, and when I fail to do so, I'm responsible for paying for the damage that they create.

Why would it be any different for a public piece of art?

[FIRE@50]

If my child walked over to a neighbour's driveway and spent a couple hours scratching doodles into all the panels of his vintage Maserati with a key I'd expect a pretty hefty, multi-thousand dollar bill.  It doesn't matter that I think the Maserati is ridiculous, and wouldn't pay more than a couple grand for it personally.  I'm responsible for watching my kids, and when I fail to do so, I'm responsible for paying for the damage that they create.

Why would it be any different for a public piece of art?

The situation you describe is an intentional act committed on private property. The cost of painting a car is easily determined by getting a couple quotes. A child accidentally pulling down a random object in a public space is not even close to the same thing. The value of art is highly subjective.

Yes, parents are responsible for the actions of their child. That doesn't mean that the value placed on the art is valid.

[partgypsy]

If my child walked over to a neighbour's driveway and spent a couple hours scratching doodles into all the panels of his vintage Maserati with a key I'd expect a pretty hefty, multi-thousand dollar bill.  It doesn't matter that I think the Maserati is ridiculous, and wouldn't pay more than a couple grand for it personally.  I'm responsible for watching my kids, and when I fail to do so, I'm responsible for paying for the damage that they create.

Why would it be any different for a public piece of art?

Plus, what happened occurred in less than a minute. Even the other adults present in the room, didn't seem to realize the statue could be pulled down. Your example happens over a couple hours. 

It's more similar to this, tho personally I think the vases are more valuable than the statue: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/feb/06/arts.artsnews1

Here are some more
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1956922_1956921_1956908,00.html

[JLee]

If my child walked over to a neighbour's driveway and spent a couple hours scratching doodles into all the panels of his vintage Maserati with a key I'd expect a pretty hefty, multi-thousand dollar bill.  It doesn't matter that I think the Maserati is ridiculous, and wouldn't pay more than a couple grand for it personally.  I'm responsible for watching my kids, and when I fail to do so, I'm responsible for paying for the damage that they create.

Why would it be any different for a public piece of art?

Plus, what happened occurred in less than a minute. Even the other adults present in the room, didn't seem to realize the statue could be pulled down. Your example happens over a couple hours.

Are you implying that the other adults present in the room didn't seem to realize that the statue could be pulled down simply because they were not watching someone else's kids?

[Chris22]

If my child walked over to a neighbour's driveway and spent a couple hours scratching doodles into all the panels of his vintage Maserati with a key I'd expect a pretty hefty, multi-thousand dollar bill.  It doesn't matter that I think the Maserati is ridiculous, and wouldn't pay more than a couple grand for it personally.  I'm responsible for watching my kids, and when I fail to do so, I'm responsible for paying for the damage that they create.

Why would it be any different for a public piece of art?

Plus, what happened occurred in less than a minute. Even the other adults present in the room, didn't seem to realize the statue could be pulled down. Your example happens over a couple hours.

Are you implying that the other adults present in the room didn't seem to realize that the statue could be pulled down simply because they were not watching someone else's kids?

Maybe the other adults in the room assumed no one was dumb enough to put a supposedly valuable statue in a way that allowed it to be yanked off of its pedestal.

[partgypsy]

If my child walked over to a neighbour's driveway and spent a couple hours scratching doodles into all the panels of his vintage Maserati with a key I'd expect a pretty hefty, multi-thousand dollar bill.  It doesn't matter that I think the Maserati is ridiculous, and wouldn't pay more than a couple grand for it personally.  I'm responsible for watching my kids, and when I fail to do so, I'm responsible for paying for the damage that they create.

Why would it be any different for a public piece of art?

Plus, what happened occurred in less than a minute. Even the other adults present in the room, didn't seem to realize the statue could be pulled down. Your example happens over a couple hours.

Are you implying that the other adults present in the room didn't seem to realize that the statue could be pulled down simply because they were not watching someone else's kids?

It looked like there were other adults in the room, who weren't "watching" the kids, but who were watching on, as it happened. Which I think is curious. I think it shows that the other people assumed something like that wasn't about to happen. Even if it wasn't my kid, if I saw a kid about to pull something heavy on top of them, I would be doing/saying something as a natural reaction.

[Jrr85]

"Well supervised?" Keep tabs on your kids and don't lie about it. They were just hoping to get out of trouble by denying it all - nice example for their kids.
That could have ended up a lot worse with the kid being seriously hurt.

Now the kid has nightmares - doubt that too - just parents influencing their kid to not accept responsibility for their actions - exactly like them! Who me, take responsibility? Squeak.

It's all just insurance company noise and media hype, probably by the parents who are surprised that someone is actually holding their feet to the fire for the actions of their little darling as well as themselves. I hope the artist gets the full $132K that she/he insured that piece for and lots of notoriety and exposure. I'm sure she'll bolt the next art piece to a pedestal:)

Well, kids aren't responsible for their actions the way adults are.  There's a reason kids don't incur debilitating debt for their negligence when their toddlers.  And there is a reason the vast majority of states don't make parents liable for negligent acts of toddlers or put a relatively small dollar limit on it. 

 

[PDXTabs]

If my child walked over to a neighbour's driveway and spent a couple hours scratching doodles into all the panels of his vintage Maserati with a key I'd expect a pretty hefty, multi-thousand dollar bill.  It doesn't matter that I think the Maserati is ridiculous, and wouldn't pay more than a couple grand for it personally.  I'm responsible for watching my kids, and when I fail to do so, I'm responsible for paying for the damage that they create.

Why would it be any different for a public piece of art?

It wouldn't, but I would imagine that your state has some cap on liability of this type. I am most familiar with Oregon law:

ORS 30.765

(1) In addition to any other remedy provided by law, the parent or parents of an unemancipated minor child shall be liable for actual damages to person or property caused by any tort intentionally or recklessly committed by such child. However, a parent who is not entitled to legal custody of the minor child at the time of the intentional or reckless tort shall not be liable for such damages.

(2) The legal obligation of the parent or parents of an unemancipated minor child to pay damages under this section shall be limited to not more than $7,500, payable to the same claimant, for one or more acts.

(3) When an action is brought under this section on parental responsibility for acts of their children, the parents shall be named as defendants therein and, in addition, the minor child shall be named as a defendant. The filing of an answer by the parents shall remove any requirement that a guardian ad litem be required.

(4) Nothing in subsections (1) to (3) of this section applies to foster parents.

ORS 30.765

[bacchi]

The $137k was an opening bid. The other insurance company will reply, "Wuut? Prove that the artist's work is worth that much." The end result will be more reasonable.

And, yes, the parent's insurance premiums will increase, as they should.

[Jrr85]

The $137k was an opening bid. The other insurance company will reply, "Wuut? Prove that the artist's work is worth that much." The end result will be more reasonable.

And, yes, the parent's insurance premiums will increase, as they should.

The end result will be zero if this website is correct about Kansas's law on parental responsibility:

https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/parental-responsibility-in-all-50-states.pdf

Insurance premiums still might go up.  Not sure if premiums will typically be raised for a frivolous claim like this.  Certainly they will if an actual suit is filed.  But if the community center's insurance company just sends a letter, the parent's insurance company lawyer looks at it and sends the other insurance company a letter telling them to go pound sand, it might not. 

[Institutionalized]

I have to say I'm somewhat surprised that several posters who I always read posting about personal responsibility and the like are so quick to label the child and parents as blameless.  I mean, you guys are even going to lengths to clearly misrepresent what the video shows by saying the child merely bumped into the statue or did this by accident.

Is it because art is involved?  Just curious.

[Chris22]

I have to say I'm somewhat surprised that several posters who I always read posting about personal responsibility and the like are so quick to label the child and parents as blameless.  I mean, you guys are even going to lengths to clearly misrepresent what the video shows by saying the child merely bumped into the statue or did this by accident.

Is it because art is involved?  Just curious.

I don't think the kid is blameless, but the attempted recoupment is ridiculous.  If the art was really that valuable, more steps should have been put into place to prevent an accident (or even an on-purpose).  At the end of the day, if I leave my wallet on a bench and someone swipes a $20 out, shame on them.  If I leave $132k in cash sitting there and they swipe it, shame on them, but also shame on me for being completely irresponsible with the money and not having the foresight to see what is going to obviously happen. 

[GuitarStv]

I have to say I'm somewhat surprised that several posters who I always read posting about personal responsibility and the like are so quick to label the child and parents as blameless.  I mean, you guys are even going to lengths to clearly misrepresent what the video shows by saying the child merely bumped into the statue or did this by accident.

Is it because art is involved?  Just curious.

I don't think the kid is blameless, but the attempted recoupment is ridiculous.  If the art was really that valuable, more steps should have been put into place to prevent an accident (or even an on-purpose).  At the end of the day, if I leave my wallet on a bench and someone swipes a $20 out, shame on them.  If I leave $132k in cash sitting there and they swipe it, shame on them, but also shame on me for being completely irresponsible with the money and not having the foresight to see what is going to obviously happen.

So, if I don't place much value in someone's car  . . . I shouldn't have to pay for damages my kid does to it?  I've seen expensive Porsches and Lamborghinis parked on the side of public roads.  That's more than 100 thousand dollars worth of cash just sitting there.  I suspect that if the damage had been to someone's car we wouldn't be having this conversation though.

[FIRE@50]

I have to say I'm somewhat surprised that several posters who I always read posting about personal responsibility and the like are so quick to label the child and parents as blameless.  I mean, you guys are even going to lengths to clearly misrepresent what the video shows by saying the child merely bumped into the statue or did this by accident.

Is it because art is involved?  Just curious.

I don't think the kid is blameless, but the attempted recoupment is ridiculous.  If the art was really that valuable, more steps should have been put into place to prevent an accident (or even an on-purpose).  At the end of the day, if I leave my wallet on a bench and someone swipes a $20 out, shame on them.  If I leave $132k in cash sitting there and they swipe it, shame on them, but also shame on me for being completely irresponsible with the money and not having the foresight to see what is going to obviously happen.

So, if I don't place much value in someone's car  . . . I shouldn't have to pay for damages my kid does to it?  I've seen expensive Porsches and Lamborghinis parked on the side of public roads.  That's more than 100 thousand dollars worth of cash just sitting there.  I suspect that if the damage had been to someone's car we wouldn't be having this conversation though.

You keep going back to cars for comparison. It is still a weak argument. Cars are easily valued. So easy that their values and sale histories are posted on the internet for anyone to look up. The value of that piece of art is completely fabricated until someone actually ponies up the cash for it.

Like I said before, "Yes, parents are responsible for the actions of their child. That doesn't mean that the value placed on the art is valid."

[Chris22]

I have to say I'm somewhat surprised that several posters who I always read posting about personal responsibility and the like are so quick to label the child and parents as blameless.  I mean, you guys are even going to lengths to clearly misrepresent what the video shows by saying the child merely bumped into the statue or did this by accident.

Is it because art is involved?  Just curious.

I don't think the kid is blameless, but the attempted recoupment is ridiculous.  If the art was really that valuable, more steps should have been put into place to prevent an accident (or even an on-purpose).  At the end of the day, if I leave my wallet on a bench and someone swipes a $20 out, shame on them.  If I leave $132k in cash sitting there and they swipe it, shame on them, but also shame on me for being completely irresponsible with the money and not having the foresight to see what is going to obviously happen.

So, if I don't place much value in someone's car  . . . I shouldn't have to pay for damages my kid does to it?  I've seen expensive Porsches and Lamborghinis parked on the side of public roads.  That's more than 100 thousand dollars worth of cash just sitting there.  I suspect that if the damage had been to someone's car we wouldn't be having this conversation though.

Well first of all, it's hard for a kid to total a car that is just sitting there, so you might be out a couple grand to repair it, but not $100k to replace it, which brings the penalty back in line with normal expectations.  Let's someone left their Porsche on the side of the road and a kid with a bike accidentally rode into it and scratched it, the owner gets to ask you repair it, he doesn't get to demand a whole new car. 

Second, if the owner of the car left it in such a way that made it likely that it would be damaged, yes, it would be absolutely partly on the owner.  Let's say the owner parked it on the side of the road partially blocking a driveway, and someone backing out of their driveway hit it, that's partly on the owner of the car. 

Or maybe a better example, go park a Ferrari or Lamborghini with the doors unlocked and the keys in it, and then have it stolen and try to claim it on your insurance.  The insurance company will absolutely want to know why you failed to secure it, and likely deny payment as a result, recognizing that you share a significant amount of the culpability for failing to take basic measure to protect your property.  That's sorta what happened here. 

[PDXTabs]

So, if I don't place much value in someone's car  . . . I shouldn't have to pay for damages my kid does to it?  I've seen expensive Porsches and Lamborghinis parked on the side of public roads.  That's more than 100 thousand dollars worth of cash just sitting there.  I suspect that if the damage had been to someone's car we wouldn't be having this conversation though.

That is a very good example. The minimum insurance coverage for property damage in the state of Oregon is $20k. If you choose to drive around your brand new Lamborghini without any under-insured motorists coverage and you lose $100k you should have seen that coming. It doesn't matter that you didn't hit your own car, societies have the right to self organize and they have decided that you only need $20k of property coverage to drive in the State of Oregon. If you don't like that you are free to buy more insurance for your insanely expensive automobile.

[GuitarStv]

So, if I don't place much value in someone's car  . . . I shouldn't have to pay for damages my kid does to it?  I've seen expensive Porsches and Lamborghinis parked on the side of public roads.  That's more than 100 thousand dollars worth of cash just sitting there.  I suspect that if the damage had been to someone's car we wouldn't be having this conversation though.

That is a very good example. The minimum insurance coverage for property damage in the state of Oregon is $20k. If you choose to drive around your brand new Lamborghini without any under-insured motorists coverage and you lose $100k you should have seen that coming. It doesn't matter that you didn't hit your own car, societies have the right to self organize and they have decided that you only need $20k of property coverage to drive in the State of Oregon. If you don't like that you are free to buy more insurance for your insanely expensive automobile.

Right.  But in the case we're discussing, the work of art was insured.  It's the insurance company in fact that's trying to recoup it's losses  . . .  not the artist just claiming a particular value after the fact.

[bacchi]

Or maybe a better example, go park a Ferrari or Lamborghini with the doors unlocked and the keys in it, and then have it stolen and try to claim it on your insurance.  The insurance company will absolutely want to know why you failed to secure it, and likely deny payment as a result, recognizing that you share a significant amount of the culpability for failing to take basic measure to protect your property.  That's sorta what happened here.

What? You're making things up now. No insurance company is going to deny a payout because a car was stolen with the keys in the car. There's a standard (ISO) policy for comprehensive coverage, which covers auto theft, and it doesn't have a waiver for leaving keys in the car.

[Jrr85]

So, if I don't place much value in someone's car  . . . I shouldn't have to pay for damages my kid does to it?  I've seen expensive Porsches and Lamborghinis parked on the side of public roads.  That's more than 100 thousand dollars worth of cash just sitting there.  I suspect that if the damage had been to someone's car we wouldn't be having this conversation though.

That is a very good example. The minimum insurance coverage for property damage in the state of Oregon is $20k. If you choose to drive around your brand new Lamborghini without any under-insured motorists coverage and you lose $100k you should have seen that coming. It doesn't matter that you didn't hit your own car, societies have the right to self organize and they have decided that you only need $20k of property coverage to drive in the State of Oregon. If you don't like that you are free to buy more insurance for your insanely expensive automobile.

Right.  But in the case we're discussing, the work of art was insured.  It's the insurance company in fact that's trying to recoup it's losses  . . .  not the artist just claiming a particular value after the fact.

Are you sure about this?  It sounds like the artist is suing the city and the city's insurance company is looking for money so it doesn't have to pay out of its own pockets.  I have not seen that the city insured the art for a specific amount.  When the insurance company knows where the funds will come from to pay the claim, unless it was a scheduled item, I suspect they will push back hard on its value.

[JLee]

I have to say I'm somewhat surprised that several posters who I always read posting about personal responsibility and the like are so quick to label the child and parents as blameless.  I mean, you guys are even going to lengths to clearly misrepresent what the video shows by saying the child merely bumped into the statue or did this by accident.

Is it because art is involved?  Just curious.

I don't think the kid is blameless, but the attempted recoupment is ridiculous.  If the art was really that valuable, more steps should have been put into place to prevent an accident (or even an on-purpose).  At the end of the day, if I leave my wallet on a bench and someone swipes a $20 out, shame on them.  If I leave $132k in cash sitting there and they swipe it, shame on them, but also shame on me for being completely irresponsible with the money and not having the foresight to see what is going to obviously happen.

So, if I don't place much value in someone's car  . . . I shouldn't have to pay for damages my kid does to it?  I've seen expensive Porsches and Lamborghinis parked on the side of public roads.  That's more than 100 thousand dollars worth of cash just sitting there.  I suspect that if the damage had been to someone's car we wouldn't be having this conversation though.

Well first of all, it's hard for a kid to total a car that is just sitting there, so you might be out a couple grand to repair it, but not $100k to replace it, which brings the penalty back in line with normal expectations.  Let's someone left their Porsche on the side of the road and a kid with a bike accidentally rode into it and scratched it, the owner gets to ask you repair it, he doesn't get to demand a whole new car. 

Second, if the owner of the car left it in such a way that made it likely that it would be damaged, yes, it would be absolutely partly on the owner.  Let's say the owner parked it on the side of the road partially blocking a driveway, and someone backing out of their driveway hit it, that's partly on the owner of the car. 

Or maybe a better example, go park a Ferrari or Lamborghini with the doors unlocked and the keys in it, and then have it stolen and try to claim it on your insurance.  The insurance company will absolutely want to know why you failed to secure it, and likely deny payment as a result, recognizing that you share a significant amount of the culpability for failing to take basic measure to protect your property.  That's sorta what happened here.

That's not how that works.

http://attorney-myers.com/2012/11/backing-into-illegally-parked-car/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/kryya/hey_reddit_if_you_crash_into_an_illegally_parked/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Insurance/comments/87rdsz/someone_hit_my_illegally_parked_car/
https://www.nasdaq.com/article/when-your-parked-car-is-at-fault-cm106231

You're in control of the vehicle you're driving. If you hit a stationary object, that is almost exclusively going to be on you.

[Rosy]

"Well supervised?" Keep tabs on your kids and don't lie about it. They were just hoping to get out of trouble by denying it all - nice example for their kids.
That could have ended up a lot worse with the kid being seriously hurt.

Now the kid has nightmares - doubt that too - just parents influencing their kid to not accept responsibility for their actions - exactly like them! Who me, take responsibility? Squeak.

It's all just insurance company noise and media hype, probably by the parents who are surprised that someone is actually holding their feet to the fire for the actions of their little darling as well as themselves. I hope the artist gets the full $132K that she/he insured that piece for and lots of notoriety and exposure. I'm sure she'll bolt the next art piece to a pedestal:)

When "taking responsibility" has such an outsized cost to it, I'd be looking for ways to shirk it too.  If my kid did $132 or even $1320 of damage, yeah, I'm stepping up, but $132k?  That's ridiculous.  If you fail to secure something super expensive and invite the public in with it accessible, and shit happens, it's on you, man.  If I left $25k in cash sitting on a bench and then screamed at some kid for taking it, is it really on the kid, or on me, the dumbass grownup who should've known better?

Cost shouldn't matter - in principle, but I see your point. Yeah, kids will be kids - but not watching them for quite some time and then lying about it is not cool. Your kids do remember stuff like that - it sends entirely the wrong message.
You let your kids willfully destroy stuff and then shrug it off? even go so far as now holding other people responsible?

Securing the art piece is another matter. Our town actually has a similar piece on permanent display and it is secured, like it should be. Show me the unsupervised brat who wouldn't climb on a statue or try to rock it, if they had the chance.

However, this was an art piece on loan.
It probably cost the community center nothing and sometimes that is exactly how they treat the art they receive.
While the artwork is in the custody of the community center they have the responsibility for its care unless agreed otherwise with the artist.
Of course, they should have secured it.

The outcome will be that insurance companies will raise their insurance rates for community centers and we all lose since that comes out of our taxes. I'm guessing that in the future artists will not be given the opportunity to show their art there, no one wants to take responsibility here. No one.

This entire situation was caused by negligent parents no matter how you slice it. This was an avoidable loss - not an accident at all.
The two parties responsible in my opinion are the parents and the community center in equal measure.

The crucial point here is that the artist properly insured the artwork and the insurance company agreed to the value stated in the policy - there is no getting around that. It is called a valid insurance policy.
Insurance companies are for-profit corporations. Their claims adjusters are paid to investigate and reduce exposure to the insurance company, it doesn't mean they will not pay full value if the piece is insured properly.

I am appalled that people try to construe this as a ploy by the artist to inflate the value of the artwork after the fact and attempt to collect $132K - that would be insurance fraud.
How easily public opinion is swayed and how scornful and dismissive we are of artists as a society. I hope he/she makes out like a bandit when all is said and done.