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.

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, ??

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.

Not my children, not my statue either