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 ...
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.
The city must have insurance for these types of accidents.
*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.
If this family were illegal aliens, they would be able to sue the City for the trauma the child suffered as the statue was destroyed.
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)
They need to sue the city and the statue maker (I resist the idea of calling him/her an artist) for leaving such a fragile and hazardous piece of 'art' in a public place without some protection for the public. What if the statue didn't break but came down crashing on the body of this small child? Who pays for that?
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.
Even if the statue was of OBAMA or CASTRO? (sarc.)
Statue Control? I like it!!!
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.
Sounds like the liberals in charge failed to secure the statue properly.
If so they need their butts sued for allowing a dangerous condition to be there for any child.
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.
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.