|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 16, 2018 20:22:14 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:  That's the Mona Lisa. This happened in Kansas City with a piece of art that is at a minimum a thousandth the value of that. The security system for the Mona Lisa is probably worth more than all the art in that place. It doesn't matter since liability is not based on level of protection. If you kill someone after drinking and driving, it does not reduce the damages or liability one dollar if the victim wasn't wearing their seatbelt. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 16, 2018 20:22:42 GMT
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. It most certainly was not. Quit being silly. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 16, 2018 20:23:40 GMT
The community center was negligent. It most certainly was not. Quit being silly. It most certainly was. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 16, 2018 20:28:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 16, 2018 20:30:51 GMT
|
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
 
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 16, 2018 20:36:22 GMT
Hmm.. The Statue doesn't seem to have been very secure, it fell over rather quickly even if "pulled" by a 5 year old.
Also the parents said they were at a wedding (so they didn't go to a museum with their kid) why is this museum allowing a wedding guests to walk through it? is this a common thing?
Also why on earth are there 3 women present, one of whom is facing the child and not one of them intervenes when he plays with the statue?
|
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Jun 16, 2018 20:42:06 GMT
Hmm.. The Statue doesn't seem to have been very secure, it fell over rather quickly even if "pulled" by a 5 year old. Also the parents said they were at a wedding (so they didn't go to a museum with their kid) why is this museum allowing a wedding guests to walk through it? is this a common thing? Also why on earth are there 3 women present, one of whom is facing the child and not one of them intervenes when he plays with the statue? Ar you saying that it is strangers responsibility to watch over other peoples children? |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 16, 2018 20:48:31 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: That's the Mona Lisa. This happened in Kansas City with a piece of art that is at a minimum a thousandth the value of that. The security system for the Mona Lisa is probably worth more than all the art in that place. It doesn't matter since liability is not based on level of protection. If you kill someone after drinking and driving, it does not reduce the damages or liability one dollar if the victim wasn't wearing their seatbelt. "That's the Mona Lisa. This happened in Kansas City with a piece of art that is at a minimum a thousandth the value of that."
What difference does it make? They're still both worth quite a bit. Maybe the vase isn't worth as much as the Mona Lisa, but considering the vase is allegedly worth more than what most people make in a year, yeah they should have better security. Again, what's to stop some deranged homeless person from coming in and breaking it? Did that thought not occur to them?
"The security system for the Mona Lisa is probably worth more than all the art in that place."
I'm not saying the vase should have laser trip wires and a team of guards, but it sounds like the vase had pretty much no protection if a little kid was able to get to it.
"It doesn't matter since liability is not based on level of protection."
If you had an expensive piece of art in a museum, would it not serve to reason you should have decent security for it? I wouldn't leave an expensive vase where a little kid or crazy transient could get to it, it seems like they practically wanted it to be broken.
"If you kill someone after drinking and driving, it does not reduce the damages or liability one dollar if the victim wasn't wearing their seatbelt."
False equivalency. Roads are large, open public areas with cars going very fast, a much more dangerous and difficult to control environment. You can put rules in place to reduce accidents, but ultimately a lot of the safety depends on the driver. A small private establishment is much easier to control, you can set up rules, security guards, kick people out, etc. It's your establishment, you're ultimately in control of what happens. I'm not saying there parents are completely blameless, but the museum was pretty dumb if they didn't factor in the possibility expensive art can be broken.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jun 16, 2018 20:49:17 GMT
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. Do you have some fetish of using the world "irrelevant"? Yes, of course it is relevant how secure the sculpture was and you are being more than silly if you believe that was irreverent. But you can continue arguing your case Mr. I want to have last post Smithy. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jun 16, 2018 20:51:34 GMT
Hmm.. The Statue doesn't seem to have been very secure, it fell over rather quickly even if "pulled" by a 5 year old. Also the parents said they were at a wedding (so they didn't go to a museum with their kid) why is this museum allowing a wedding guests to walk through it? is this a common thing? Also why on earth are there 3 women present, one of whom is facing the child and not one of them intervenes when he plays with the statue? The way I see it in today's culture suing people is a sort of fashion. Not the best thing about western culture. |
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Jun 16, 2018 20:51:42 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: I love art and you can't fully appreciate it from several meters away. And what about public art? Is it perhaps Stockholm Public Transports fault that some stupid kids spraypainted the artwork in the suway and by that destroying them? People need to get their eyes away from their smartphones and start bringing up their kids instead. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 16, 2018 20:58:01 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: I love art and you can't fully appreciate it from several meters away. And what about public art? Is it perhaps Stockholm Public Transports fault that some stupid kids spraypainted the artwork in the suway and by that destroying them? People need to get their eyes away from their smartphones and start bringing up their kids instead. "I love art and you can't fully appreciate it from several meters away."
Well there's plenty of close up images of the Mona Lisa online. Do you think people in the Louvre should be allowed up close to a $100 million painting? If you were running the Louvre would you allow that?
"Is it perhaps Stockholm Public Transports fault that some stupid kids spraypainted the artwork in the suway and by that destroying them?"
Is the public art worth millions of dollars? If so, then yeah it should have some sort of protections (or not even be out in public to begin with)
"People need to get their eyes away from their smartphones and start bringing up their kids instead."
Is this the part where you play a piano and sing "Those were the days!"
|
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Jun 16, 2018 21:10:23 GMT
I love art and you can't fully appreciate it from several meters away. And what about public art? Is it perhaps Stockholm Public Transports fault that some stupid kids spraypainted the artwork in the suway and by that destroying them? People need to get their eyes away from their smartphones and start bringing up their kids instead.
Well there's plenty of close up images of the Mona Lisa online. Do you think people in the Louvre should be allowed up close to a $100 million painting? If you were running the Louvre would you allow that?
Close ups? You are not an artsy person are you? An artist doesn't just use different colors of paint, they use different thickness of paint and the direction and tecnique of the brushstrokes to get effects, that is something you never can see on a 2D-photograph. And yes, I would. After the person have security clearense and booked an appointment, I would allow it for a fee. Yes, it is. And it is a bit hard to get the art of the walls. Any tips on how to do it?  Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 16, 2018 21:10:48 GMT
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. Do you have some fetish of using the world "irrelevant"? Yes, of course it is relevant how secure the sculpture was and you are being more than silly if you believe that was irreverent. But you can continue arguing your case Mr. I want to have last post Smithy. Not really, there's just a lot of stuff that's irrelevant. If you can think of a better synonym for it, I'll be happy to use it. It's not relevant (Does not relevant work?) because it's been addressed and the fact that this has NEVER happened before along with video of the parent being stupid along with the child, it's not relevant to liability. They are responsibility all the live long day unless they cn prove 5 year olds have never entered the place, the museum removed them from liability, or the piece was worthless. Of course, due to the negative press the story may receive, a jury may determine partial liability for not having the piece in a cage or something else stupid, but barring that, they are responsible. I can google & explain subrogation to you if you like. I had to do it hundreds of times in my claims adjusting days. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 16, 2018 21:17:51 GMT
Well there's plenty of close up images of the Mona Lisa online. Do you think people in the Louvre should be allowed up close to a $100 million painting? If you were running the Louvre would you allow that?
Close ups? You are not an artsy person are you? An artist doesn't just use different colors of paint, they use different thickness of paint and the direction and tecnique of the brushstrokes to get effects, that is something you never can see on a 2D-photograph. And yes, I would. After the person have security clearense and booked an appointment, I would allow it for a fee. Yes, it is. And it is a bit hard to get the art of the walls. Any tips on how to do it? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! "And yes, I would. After the person have security clearense and booked an appointment, I would allow it for a fee."
Then obviously you're still putting in some form of security, so I dunno what argument you're exactly making. I'm asking do you believe expensive art such as the Mona Lisa should have pretty much no security and people can get as close to it as they want? If no, then I'm not sure why you would feel any different about an expensive vase.
"Yes, it is."
Then there should definetly be some sort of security to prevent vandalism. That's not rocket science. Besides that's not the same thing as a fragile vase, that looks much harder to deface. If I were to put unguarded public Jewish art in, I dunno, Gaza Strip, and it gets destroyed, whose fault is that? Obviously the vandals should get blamed, but utlimately it it was a dumb idea to put unguarded Jewish art there to begin with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jun 16, 2018 21:23:58 GMT
Do you have some fetish of using the world "irrelevant"? Yes, of course it is relevant how secure the sculpture was and you are being more than silly if you believe that was irreverent. But you can continue arguing your case Mr. I want to have last post Smithy. Not really, there's just a lot of stuff that's irrelevant. If you can think of a better synonym for it, I'll be happy to use it. It's not relevant (Does not relevant work?) because it's been addressed and the fact that this has NEVER happened before along with video of the parent being stupid along with the child, it's not relevant to liability. They are responsibility all the live long day unless they cn prove 5 year olds have never entered the place, the museum removed them from liability, or the piece was worthless. Of course, due to the negative press the story may receive, a jury may determine partial liability for not having the piece in a cage or something else stupid, but barring that, they are responsible. I can google & explain subrogation to you if you like. I had to do it hundreds of times in my claims adjusting days. Something has not happened before so it is full proof is a poor argument. You don't need to explain anything to me. Things don't always work as prescribed by law. For example, in bankruptcy proceedings, debt holders are supposed to be paid strictly according to their seniority rankings ( First lien, second lien, senior secured, senior unsecured, junior, mezzanine, subordinate etc.) but that actually very rarely happens in reality as in bankruptcy cases even equity holders might get paid a bit before senior bondholders get paid fully. It's not as black and white as you believe it to be. Also, intentions to break something might be considered. In this case we have a 5 year old kid. |
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 16, 2018 21:27:16 GMT
Hmm.. The Statue doesn't seem to have been very secure, it fell over rather quickly even if "pulled" by a 5 year old. Also the parents said they were at a wedding (so they didn't go to a museum with their kid) why is this museum allowing a wedding guests to walk through it? is this a common thing? Also why on earth are there 3 women present, one of whom is facing the child and not one of them intervenes when he plays with the statue? Ar you saying that it is strangers responsibility to watch over other peoples children? Responsibility? Nope didn't say it. But it is about caring and being human. What I mean is exactly what I said, my kid or not, I see a kid doing something dangerous and no one is around, I will intervene. The statue seems to almost brain the kid... you can be sure if the statue had hit the kid and split his skull I wouldn't be the only one asking the question. 2nd. I was thinking maybe these women work for the place? even just one of them? I actually think the responsibility is split in this case, yes the parents should have watched the kid, however they were at a wedding, they were simply saying goodbye and the kid just ran to the next room seems like... you can't watch a kid 24/7 it's impossible. They did not take their kid where they knew expensive things were around they took him to a wedding. The place however knew that they had expensive stuff around, knew that there was a wedding taking place and there would be people walking through, they should have secured the peice better and/or during the wedding have some sort of security in place... I mean you have expensive stuff and strangers going around the place what if it had been a theif? The parents were responsible for the kid but the place was also responsible for the art that was on loan to them. Did they not expend less energy being careful, knowing they were insured and would anyways be reimbursed ? |
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 16, 2018 21:45:10 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: That's the Mona Lisa. This happened in Kansas City with a piece of art that is at a minimum a thousandth the value of that. The security system for the Mona Lisa is probably worth more than all the art in that place. It doesn't matter since liability is not based on level of protection. If you kill someone after drinking and driving, it does not reduce the damages or liability one dollar if the victim wasn't wearing their seatbelt. What if you get into an accident not being drunk but someone dies because they refused to wear their seatbelt? or because the car had a faulty peice? are you responsible? I'm all for parents teaching their kids rights and wrongs and how to behave but I also think there is a limit to what can be expected of parents in regards to the childs actions or accidents. Children no matter how well or strictly raise are not mindless robots and will do things on their own volition knowing full well they were thaught differently. What should be considered is how the child acts in general, not a single event and you label parents irresponsible because they took their eyes off a kid for 5 minutes. |
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Jun 16, 2018 21:45:57 GMT
Sounds to me like that dumb bitch needs to look up the meaning of the word "negligent" |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 16, 2018 22:15:23 GMT
islandmurIt depends on if the accident is your fault. If it's your fault, you're liable. They wouldn't have died at all if they hadn't been hit. To be clear, damages may adjusted based on the lack of a seatbelt, but that has nothing to do with who is at fault. Generally speaking, auto defects are the fault of the owner. So if your brakes fail, the law assumes that you should have know they would fail. So from an insurance perspective, they would pay the claim and then if it's defective, they could go after the manufacturer. On the plus side, if you have a heart attack for the first time and run into someone, you are usually not liable since you would have no way of knowing you would have a heart attack. The second time, it could be your fault since you knew yo had a heart condition. I may agree if this was a one or two year old (My toddler stole some panty hose from a Macy's one time, but we still would have been responsble for the theft). The thing is that liability is not personal. It didn;t matter if the parents are good parents or not. It's about who is responsible for the damge. It is not a reasonable expectation for the community center to nail down or cage up art when the reasonable expectation is that parents should watch their five year olds. Our downtown library has an art gallery inside of it with pieces out on display for sale and it has never been a routine thing that a kid would climb on it and knock it over. I'm not sure why this place would have a higher threshold of responsibility than most other museums not housing Van Gogh's. This doesn't work when money is involved. There will never be another opportunity for the kid to make the same mistake on the artist's piece. If a kid threw a ball through your window, I have no idea why you would let that go on the basis of his personality of the frequency of times he may have done it. If you don;t hold him or his parents accountable, then you wold be the one paying for the damge. Liability and negligence are not criminal acts. They have nothing to do with the legality of an action so there's no reason for a character study of the liable party. If they did it they owe it and if it's a minor, the parents owe it. The fact that the parents' insurance company is involved means they know how all this works. The parents involved the press because they want to appeal to the emotions of the general public which could totally work. It being a govenment location rather than a corporation makes it more difficult, but still it could happen.
|
|
