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 ?

Not my children, not my statue either

The museum now owns the child.

Parents.... good luck with that.

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.

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!

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.