|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 16, 2018 13:11:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jun 16, 2018 13:23:17 GMT
Look out, now they're the victims.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jun 16, 2018 13:29:29 GMT
Don't think there is a very high chance that the insurance company will win the claim.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jun 16, 2018 13:43:27 GMT
Don't think there is a very high chance that the insurance company will win the claim. No chance at all. The art looked very overpriced. I imagine I could do that by bending some coat hangers over a department store mannequin.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 16, 2018 13:59:01 GMT
Don't think there is a very high chance that the insurance company will win the claim. There is an extremely high chance. Subrogation is very common in insurance claims. There was many a time I demanded reimbursement for claims. They probably already paid the artist since the item was in their care and custody even if they weren't negligent. Now they want the money back. They will have to determine value though which can be tough with art. If the artist sold similar pieces for that price, they're screwed. Also, the insurance company may just be providing notice and not go through with a lawsuit, but or that amount of money, I certainly would go after them.
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Jun 16, 2018 14:05:16 GMT
I think they should pay, the world is not a giant playground where parents can let their kids run free.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jun 16, 2018 14:09:09 GMT
Don't think there is a very high chance that the insurance company will win the claim. There is an extremely high chance. Subrogation is very common in insurance claims. There was many a time I demanded reimbursement for claims. They probably already paid the artist since the item was in their care and custody even if they weren't negligent. Now they want the money back. They will have to determine value though which can be tough with art. If the artist sold similar pieces for that price, they're screwed. Also, the insurance company may just be providing notice and not go through with a lawsuit, but or that amount of money, I certainly would go after them. If the insurance company is the one who has sent the claims to parents then it probably means they have paid or are in the process of paying to whoever owned the sculpture. But it's not going to be easy to recover the full amount. There are many types of issues in such cases. How secure that sculpture was and all kinds of things the lawyers an bring.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Jun 16, 2018 14:14:31 GMT
Perhaps they can spend all that money on protecting their precious artwork from being so easily destroyed by a small child.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 16, 2018 15:03:56 GMT
A lot of people "child proof" their homes even if they don't have their own children living there (yet, anymore, or at all) so when visitors come the children of the visitors will be safer. Dangerous chemicals go on higher shelves. Railings have no large openings, that sort of thing.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jun 16, 2018 15:24:12 GMT
I think they should pay, the world is not a giant playground where parents can let their kids run free. A bit of background on Overland Park, Kansas... I grew up there, smack in the middle of Johnson County, Kansas, one of the wealthier counties in the nation. I moved out of there, to neighboring Missouri, as soon as I could. "Johnson County brats" is a frequently used description for children in that area. They are raised to think the world is their oyster, they have a strong sense of entitlement. I was raised in an older area, on the land where my father grew up during the Depression, so I was 'pre' brat period. My grandparents were subsistence farmers. But it is in general a very wealthy area and kids have no sense of what it takes to make a living. Most have inherited money. Most have no sense of responsibility, and no respect for the value of things. This kid is only 5, so his parents should have been on the watch and his parents should be held responsible. MAYBE the kid will learn something.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 16, 2018 17:55:00 GMT
There is an extremely high chance. Subrogation is very common in insurance claims. There was many a time I demanded reimbursement for claims. They probably already paid the artist since the item was in their care and custody even if they weren't negligent. Now they want the money back. They will have to determine value though which can be tough with art. If the artist sold similar pieces for that price, they're screwed. Also, the insurance company may just be providing notice and not go through with a lawsuit, but or that amount of money, I certainly would go after them. If the insurance company is the one who has sent the claims to parents then it probably means they have paid or are in the process of paying to whoever owned the sculpture. But it's not going to be easy to recover the full amount. There are many types of issues in such cases. How secure that sculpture was and all kinds of things the lawyers an bring. Yes, they probably did already pay and now they are trying to collect from the responsible party. Whether they have the money or not is irrelevant as long as they can secure the legitimacy of the claim. Depending on how mean the insurance company is, they may not have any problem with this family losing everything to settle the damages. Of course, it's possible the family's insurance could step in and determine liability as well. How secure the sculpture was is irrelevant if there is not a record of the the pieces being damaged. It means most people behaved properly enough that securing it wasn;t an issue. Insurance companies pay for things all the time that aren't handled properly, but this piece, per the article, probably was.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 16, 2018 18:04:09 GMT
A lot of people "child proof" their homes even if they don't have their own children living there (yet, anymore, or at all) so when visitors come the children of the visitors will be safer. Dangerous chemicals go on higher shelves. Railings have no large openings, that sort of thing. Yes, the museum could have put the thing in a box, but they are not required to. The burden is on the parents to look after their children in public places. The parents are responsible. The kid ws 5 years old to boot meaning he was smart enough to be mindful if he had been taught that. Whether the insurance company should be going after them is less an issue than the notion that the parents are offended that the museum called them out for what their kid did. Hopefully, they have somewhere that the museum told them not to worry about it.
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Jun 16, 2018 18:30:26 GMT
The entire world should be encased in bubble wrap.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 16, 2018 19:29:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jun 16, 2018 19:45:30 GMT
The parents ARE responsible. Too many children are spoiled rotten disregarding their place. A museum is NOT a play ground! A restaurant is NOT a playground! A store is NOT a playground!
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 16, 2018 20:09:07 GMT
I agree with the parents.
For one, why in the hell would a community center have a $132k sculpture located someplace where a 5-year-old might be unsupervised and be able to grab it?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 16, 2018 20:11:19 GMT
Shouldn't expensive art be better protected? Forget kids, what's to stop some crazy, drunk homeless guy from breaking expensive vases? The Louvre has the right idea:
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 16, 2018 20:15:21 GMT
I agree with the parents. For one, why in the hell would a community center have a $132k sculpture located someplace where a 5-year-old might be unsupervised and be able to grab it? It doesn't matter if it was five dollars in relation to liability. You might as well be asking why they had a candy bar laying around. It doesn't change the fact the parents are responsible for their kids' actions. Liability has no bearing to value.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 16, 2018 20:18:50 GMT
Shouldn't expensive art be better protected? Forget kids, what's to stop some crazy, drunk homeless guy from breaking expensive vases? The Louvre has the right idea: Yeah, that's basically what I was getting at. When you go to the Met, the Louvre, etc. they make sure there aren't people running around touching the artworks. They're not going to be so stupid as to have expensive, irreplaceable artworks sitting around unprotected and unsupervised, especially so that a five year-old kid could damage anything without extraordinary effort to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 16, 2018 20:19:26 GMT
I agree with the parents. For one, why in the hell would a community center have a $132k sculpture located someplace where a 5-year-old might be unsupervised and be able to grab it? It doesn't matter if it was five dollars in relation to liability. You might as well be asking why they had a candy bar laying around. It doesn't change the fact the parents are responsible for their kids' actions. Liability has no bearing to value. The community center was negligent.
|
|