Years ago, the University had a club sports arena that allowed the community to use. The shower rooms were available at no charge. Tons of folks used them and everyone was happy. One day, a woman who everyone liked (she was a musician in a local band), used the facility and her three year old girl pushed a locker over which ended up rebounding onto the child. The child suffered a mild concussion but grew up without any problems. She was not supervising the child. Trouble was, she sued the University (did not win, settled out of court). The University ended the practice of community involvement and literally thousands of locals paid the price since they did not want a repeat of that incident.

Raises lots of points: parents should always supervise young children; older children should have been trained to behave well; exhibits should be protected; exhibitions normally have public liability insurance in the UK. Sculpture sounds overpriced to me!

A better example might be if a child damages a painting, there's no danger to the child and almost all exhibits have minimal barriers to keep people away from the art.

I can't stand parents who don't supervise their kids annoy me, airplanes are the worst.

My dog park had a mini-scandal recently when parents weren't watching their kid and a dog knocked the kid down. Thankfully it looks like the city is siding with dog owners. A dog park where everybody knows dogs will be running and playing off leash is no place for unattended toddlers. It's a dog park not a playground.

Parents.... good luck with that.

The museum now owns the child.

Not my children, not my statue either

It could have been a lot worse if the statute had fallen on that little boy because it wasn't secured down. Then the community center would be to blame for injuries and insurance would cover it. But because he wasn't hurt they want the parents to pay. Anything worth money should be secured down or locked in a display case to prevent it from accidentally be broken or stolen. My 2 cents ?

None of the above.

The gallery, or whoever organised the event, should pay. It's their stage.

I say the parents should pay...but if something could be worked out, where as not to cause the family a great hardship...I would surely go for that! Hopefully, people have homeowners insurance that might cover this, ??

Asking price is the only listed value, and no one had offered it. Piece was in a community center and completely unprotected. This sucks for all involved.

I saw this on the news a few days ago. Parents should be held responsible for their children's actions in public. For this situation, the parents are not being billed themselves but their insurance company
[cbsnews.com]

100% liable for what my daughter does until she is 18, even after that I am sure I will feel a sense of responsibility. It is my job as her parent to teach her right from wrong, and how to make intelligent decisions.

The easiest way to think of this is; if the parent did this would they be 100% responsible for it?

I say the parents are responsible, but if they don’t have the money, I sure hope the piece was insured.

So, this actually happened here where I live. The piece in question was in the lobby of a community center, not a gallery. It is not in the job description of the community center employees to wrangle wayward children while their mom is glued to her smartphone. The kid was certainly old enough to understand how to behave in public. An expensive lesson for that parent to keep a better eye on her kid.

What about "The Gallery is out of luck" for not protecting the art better?

With working in retail, I get to experience this kind of behavior often. I stood and watched a mother look and play with products on one shelf, while her child destroyed the other 4 shelves next to her. When she finished looking, she just walked away and left the display in total disarray. When her child's actions were brought to her attention she said 'oh .... sorry' and continued on as if nothing had happened. She literally went to another section and the same thing happened. I was dumbfounded.

People must be held responsible for their children. Now I believe there can be a common ground found on what and how to pay, but it should not go without consequence.

Cost of doing business.

Why would the insurance company allow the original to be so easily knocked over? Clearly the negligence of the keeper protect it better or get a replica to display.

Reputable galleries carry insurance. I have been in the back rooms of a few art galleries in NM, and if you saw how some of these places treat these pieces you would probably be a little startled.

Unattended children should be given an espresso, a large bag of Twizzlers, and a free puppy. Karma, mom n' dad.

You bring them out of your home, you're responsible. Full stop. Hope those parents can scrape together the money.

It very much depends upon the ages of the children involved, how well the art piece was protected and what country this happened in. The art piece could be considered an attractive nuisance. The event organizers could be considered negligent if the piece was not protected well enough. The event organizers could even be held responsible if the falling piece injured anyone, including the child. If the child is young enough and under British-based law, s/he could be deemed too young to have "intent" or understand the consequences of his/her actions. The artist might only be entitled to the cost of the materials used in the art piece and not its retail value.

Sign in waiting room: