Posted on 06/16/2018 6:32:18 AM PDT by BenLurkin
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 ...
That they do. And most have access to cheap or free alcohol to magnify said stupidity. But it sounds like this little guy was doing nothing more than a lot of little guys would do under the same circumstances.
Check with cleaning companies, I bet that art has hit the floor before.lawyer up time.
$132,000? Who’s fault is that?
The thing obviously wasn’t even worth a hug.
At least put safety locks on them if one isn’t willing to lock them up in a statute safe.
This is why you have insurance.
Exactly!!
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.
I’d counter sue, suggesting the facility was negligent in not protecting the statue from access by the child; it could have fallen on the child and injured him. Take up public donations to replace the statue if they want, but don’t charge the parents for it.
“And most have access to cheap or free alcohol to magnify said stupidity.“
Ain’t that the truth. I think my favorite story of hers is the time one of the Groomsmen got completely hammered, went down to the cart barn, jumped into one of the beverage carts they used for selling beer to golfers, and tore off across the course crashing it into a tree.
Said drunken guest returned to the cart barn, took another cart, and crashed that into a sand trap.
Not content with destroying 2 carts he returned a 3rd time. However by now the large garage door was closed. So he decided to ram his ride into the door in an attempt to crash through it.
He then returned to the dance floor and started drinking even more. A quick check of the security cameras identified Speed Racer. The local Sheriff was dispatched and the perp arrested. He was charged with felony damage to property in excess of $50,000.00 and not one, not two, but THREE counts of DUI.
The bride and groom were presented with a bill for around $60,000.00 if I remember correctly.
L
Little secret about P&C insurance (may not be applicable today), they indemnify. They in turn can demand indemnification from the second party. And they can indemnify party #1 by paying for a lawsuit against party #2. They don’t need to mention their name as the suing party. So they can first tell the city to seek indemnification from the second party and promise a lawsuit, and pull out at the last minute and straight out indemnify the first party.
In this case the insurance company may be asking party #1 to sue in hopes they get a deal, but likely will not continue the lawsuit (ill advised) because it wasn’t a wanton act and the first party did nothing to secure it.
Same as stores with “you break it you buy it”. If your jacket or kids elbow knocks something off a table and it breaks you will not have to pay for it despite demands from the store. The court will look at it as the “cost of doing business”.
The city has a $295 million dollar budget.
It can cover the damn statue it couldn’t bother to adequately protect and/or insure.
You break it, you bought it. Old simple rules.
Also I question that 132,000 valuation. That seems very high in my opinion. I see a couple of thousand max. Did they let the artist or the gallery make that price up out of thin air?
BS.
Overland Park is the suburb where in the late eighties the Planning Commission staff wanted a restaurant corporation to change the color of the building it proposed to build. It was a White Castle hamburger facility and the staff wanted it to be beige.
We used to have a nice artsy and expensive pot from New Mexico on a table in the living room. My then 2yo son picked up the pot, said “ball” then bounced the ball. Pottery doesn’t bounce. Pottery breaks in little pieces. It wasn’t the child’s fault but the parent’s fault (us) for insufficiently child proofing the room.
Shame on the parents for not watching their kid.
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.