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?
Unattended children should be given an espresso, a large bag of Twizzlers, and a free puppy. Karma, mom n' dad.
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.
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.
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
[cbsnews.com]
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.
Cost of doing business.
cost of having children you mean.
@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?
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.
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?
@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?