33 6

Unattended children

Two parents bring their two boys to a function that sells art. Parents are visiting with other adults while the two boys walk off to another room and one child intensionally knocks over a statue selling for over one hundred thousand.

Are the parents responsible for paying for the statue?

View Results
Count 5 June 24

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Leave the kids at home. Get a sitter.
Kids don't belong everywhere.

KKGator Level 9 June 24, 2018

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

Deb57 Level 8 June 24, 2018

Well, there's that...

Unattended children shall be sold to the circus.


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


Parents should be fully responsible for their kids. They made no effort to prevent their children from knocking it over.


Sign in waiting room:


In case someone needs to look at it a different way, what if one of the parents knocked it over? Are they responsible? Until the kid reaches the age of adulthood parents are responsible. The kids are an extension of the parents.

lerlo Level 8 June 24, 2018

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.

GwenC Level 7 June 24, 2018

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.


Until the kid turns 8 they are legally completely innocent, the parents are on the hook for any actions of the child, similar to if your dog was running loose in the gallery.


Parents should be responsible for anything their children damage or destroy until the children are old enough to be financially responsible for themselves or at least until they become legal adults. At the same time, the venue should have good insurance and the insurance company should be the ones going after the parents for reimbursement.


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


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


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.


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.


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.

Drives me nuts when I see this kind of stuff.
If people are going to have them, they are responsible for them, at all times.
No one is required to be subjected to anyone's "little darlings".
Control those brats or leave them home.
Businesses really ought to start charging for damage, and calling the police when the parents refuse to pay.

@KKGator I see the business bend over backwards in the name of customer service but that is a whole other subject. I actually don't blame the children, it is the parents that I get angry at. Your right.... your kids, your responsibility.


I'm reminded of a sign I saw in a coffee shop: "Unattended Children will Be Given a Free Kitten and an Espresso"


I've seen the video, and everyone is at fault here..the art gallery for not roping off such an expensive art work, having a guard, or at least a warning sign.

The mother, for sitting there reading obliviously while her two little boys chased each other through the art works.

The two little boys are the least at fault. They were left to their own devices, and boys almost always run and roughhouse when playing. They should have been warned, and kept close to a parent, but nobody said anything to them.


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


Cost of doing business.

cost of having children you mean.

@dellik I think she said what she meant.

@dellik Nope. Businesses have to account for incidents. That's what insurance is for.

@Alimacbean no, insurance is for accidents. This is negligence. why, exactly should the parents not be responsible?


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.

azzow2 Level 9 June 24, 2018

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.


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.


The museum now owns the child.


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 ?


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

Why is that the easiest way to think of this?

@maturin1919 why isn't it the easiest way to think about this?

If the parent was looking at their phone, or whatever have you, and knocked this piece over they'd be paying for it and all we'd ask is cash, check, or card?

@BeardedWonder Which is why I ask, because that isn't what happened. Another person is not me.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:114904
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.