I talk to parents once about their kids, if they do nothing about the little monsters I teach the kids swear words

All right, irresponsible, etc. I agree, but I can i just say:

$132,000!!!!! For that?! Good Lord. You can not convince me that the little sculpture is worth than a house.

I love that, luj. I did that with "parents" outside my gate. I love living in an area where there's a lot of foot traffic. That said, my street is not a playground, nor is the area in front of my house. A mom and a nanny with screaming brats in strollers and on foot were just staying in front of my house for a long time. I could hear the screaming kids through closed doors and windows. I went out and asked them politely to move along. They wouldn't. From behind the fence, I began teaching the kids dirty words.

Boy did these jerk women move on fast!

Now, the Goodman family may be on the hook for $132,000 after their young son toppled a sculpture.

Sorry Junior, there goes your 529 college plan...

Yeah, having small kids at a place with easily toppled breakable valuables is a bad idea.

Teaching them dirty words doesn't work here in The Caribbean..

Moms swear like a sailor when their lil' tykes misbehave.

I've taken my kids to weddings and they are 3 and 4. No problem. But I'm also not willing to let them run wild around things. Especially expensive things. On the topic of weddings in general my family views them as family affairs. So having them in a place where little kids are welcome is important. After all they are part of the family. An art gallery would be an odd choice to us.

As for the Goodman's situation, I don't have much pity for them. This seems like an easily predicted event and an easily avoided one as well.

Question: who brings a $132K piece of art to a wedding reception? you know, where small children and/or drunk people may be found?

Some people have more money than sense. Or, in this case, not enough sense to hire a security guard to keep irresponsible parties away from the art.

My advice to the family: file suit against the insurance company for injuries suffered by your child because of the negligent display of said dangerous art work. That will change the negotiations right quick.

You can not convince me that the little sculpture is worth than a house.

It bears repeating: some people have more money than sense.

They're not going to have to pay 132K. It's likely the insurance company will reject the claim a/o reduce the offered amount significantly.

The facility made no effort to secure the piece in a highly trafficked area. They put a very light and fragile sculpture on a narrow elevated base and didn't affix the sculpture to the base. Nor did they take any precautions to prevent people from touching or bumping into the piece.

Insurance doesn't cover negligence.

"My children are well-supervised, but all people get distracted," Goodman said.

No, your children weren't well-supervised. If you're attending a wedding at that sort of venue, then you and your crotch spawn should be in the ballroom where your party is. Your spawn should not be out in the halls roaming, and trying to hug a statue. It is not the responsibility of the venue to make sure your kid is out of harm's way. that's your job Mrs. Goodman. Please do your job so the rest of the world doesn't have to.

In case you were wondering, I'm not a fan of other people's kids in general. If I can't discipline them, then I want nothing to do with them. I always had the expectation that if someone saw my kid cutting up and being stupid in public, feel free to tell them to knock it off, and then come find me.

The facility made no effort to secure the piece in a highly trafficked area. They put a very light and fragile sculpture on a narrow elevated base and didn't affix the sculpture to the base. Nor did they take any precautions to prevent people from touching or bumping into the piece. ~ micky at June 18, 2018 8:26 AM

The Goldmans will argue that the piece was not secured, but the hall could counter argue that there were three adults sitting on couches watching the child romp among the decorations. Besides, the statue was off to the side, out of traffic. And, in the video, the child was told at least once to leave it alone.

In this article Mrs. Goldman says there was no sign.

The room, however, is full of artwork and statuary, museum-like, so some adult responsibility to supervise children is a reasonable expectation of visitors. This kind of negligence is why we can't have nice things.

And, it's not the hall demanding the $132,000, it's the insurance company.

Question: who brings a $132K piece of art to a wedding reception? you know, where small children and/or drunk people may be found? ~ I R A Darth Aggie at June 18, 2018 7:18 AM

No one brought it to the reception. It was one of the decorations in the community center where the wedding reception was held.

So, your question should be, "Who holds a wedding reception in a hall with nice decorations? Was the local bowling alley not available?"

Discussing the legal issues about ownership and potential liability would take up a lot of room here.

Was the child under parented? Of course, and if he had been hurt of killed the community center could have very well be fully or partially liable.

However, determining the value of a piece of artwork is subjective.

There was so much contributory negiligence on the part of the community center I doubt if the parents will have to pay.

Let’s assume for a minute that this community center is owned by the government. Is this how you would want your tax dollars allocated? Spent on artwork that sits in the middle of an unsecured area used to hold public events?

Lots of stupidity on display here, and not just the kids parents.

Conan, that was the clearest video I have seen of the incident...he tweaking the nipples on the statue! Kid was copping a feel. I'm dying!

“We heard a bunch of commotion and I thought, ‘Whose yelling at my son?’” Goodman said. “This glass mosaic torso is laying on the ground and someone is following me around demanding my personal information.”

This tells me everything I need to know about Mom.

“My children are well supervised but all people get distracted,” Goodman told KSHB.

Ah, the "just turned my back for a second" excuse. Of course the video tells a different story.

I don't think the family owes $132,000, but fending off the insurance company will be a nice application of the stupidity tax Mom does owe.

"I don’t relate to children all that well. You can’t bum a cigar off them and they rarely pick up a check." ~ Nathan Lane (in the tv show, Encore! Encore!)

There are a lot of other options for wedding venues Conan. I had my reception at a restaurant. A cousin had theirs at an arboretum. Both were very kid appropriate. Museum and bowling alley are not your two choices.

And from YouTube:

Danny C.
20 hours ago
lol she's offended... she's lucky her kid didn't die. Where the hell was she.

VG Dubrovin
19 hours ago
You know if her kid died, she would probably sue that place. Yep, that's the world we live in.
_____________________________________

I thought it was telling that the mother didn't make it clear just how she got "distracted" from watching her five-year-old - AND had the gall to say "this can happen to any family."

Trouble is, it's also true that museums - and community centers - can be incredibly thoughtless about how they display some works. (One newscaster said, in effect: "Would you put out a diamond necklace and not expect people to handle it?"): Take this, which I mentioned last July (it was a domino-effect accident):

"California woman's 'selfie fail' destroys $200,000 worth of art"

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-womans-selfie-fail-destroys-dollar200000-worth-of-art/ar-BBEpsTP?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=mailsignout

Somehow, I find it hard to believe the museum authorities couldn't have seen that coming. (Assuming it wasn't a stunt, as some suspect.)

It reminds me of those Ming vases that got destroyed at the British Museum in Jan. (?) 2006. (Incredibly, they were put back together.) But why did it have to happen in the first place? Here's what I mean. From the Guardian:

"...(The man) said disaster struck after he realised he had gone up the wrong staircase and swung around to come down. He trod on his untied shoelace and fell forward. 'I was trying to grab hold of something but the walls were smooth marble and I couldn't stop myself,' he told the Mail on Sunday.

"An instant later, Mr Flynn's 6ft, 13st frame was hurtling towards the first of the vases, all of which were displayed on a windowsill..."

I mean, if they were on a windowsill, he clearly didn't hit them by rolling on the floor after falling. So they would have to be PRETTY close to the staircase to begin with, right? How stupid could the officials have been? Anyone can fall by accident.

I thought it was telling that the mother didn't make it clear just how she got "distracted" from watching her five-year-old - AND had the gall to say "this can happen to any family."

Same mantra that gets chanted every time some idiot leaves a kid in a hot car to die.

It doesn't happen to every family.

Again, the most telling detail is the mother's first reaction: "Who's yelling at my son?"

There are a lot of other options for wedding venues Conan. I had my reception at a restaurant. A cousin had theirs at an arboretum. Both were very kid appropriate. Museum and bowling alley are not your two choices. ~ Ben at June 18, 2018 1:29 PM

But if you do happen to attend a reception at a museum or museum-like facility, watching your child around the exhibits is something you should automatically know to do.

Or leave the kid at home with a sitter; I'm pretty sure you can get one for less that $132,000.

Conan, that was the clearest video I have seen of the incident...he tweaking the nipples on the statue! Kid was copping a feel. ~ sara at June 18, 2018 11:38 AM

That's what it looked like to me, too.

I agree with you there Conan. I have little sympathy for the Goodmans. In no way was the child appropriately supervised in general much less appropriately supervised for that venue.

And as you raised above I'm a bit confused about this 'community center' where the wedding happened. Supposedly there were birthday parties happening there at the same time. How old are these people? Senior citizens? Because if these are young children having parties this really doesn't seem like the right place for that.

Their city and their community center. But the whole thing seems quite odd to me.

Whether it was the right choice or not for a wedding reception shouldn't matter; the parents should have seen when they walked in that there were things that could have been a problem for their kid.

Had my parents taken me or my siblings into such a place the first words out of their mouths would have been: "This is the kind of place we expect you to behave; you can look but do not touch anything! And if you don't behave we will go straight home and you will NOT get any cake or ice cream."

“Whether it was the right choice or not for a wedding reception shouldn't matter; the parents should have seen when they walked in that there were things that could have been a problem for their kid.”

It shouldn't matter to the parents. I agree, they were negligent. I cant tell you how many times I have had to bite my tongue whe I was around parents who let their kid run wild in public settings.

However the people who ran the Venue, which doesnt seem to be privately owned have a duty to protect valuable art, and not display it in a negligent manner.

If a five year can pull it over, then an elderly person losing their balance and putting a hand on it to steady themselves could topple it as well.

Sheer lunacy to put an open art gallery in a community center used for wedding receptions and birthdays parties. Everything should have been screwed to the wall or bolted to the floor.

Had my parents taken me or my siblings into such a place the first words out of their mouths would have been: "This is the kind of place we expect you to behave; you can look but do not touch anything! And if you don't behave we will go straight home and you will NOT get any cake or ice cream."
____________________________________________

If a five year can pull it over, then an elderly person losing their balance and putting a hand on it to steady themselves could topple it as well.
________________________________________________

Well said, both of you.

I would add that a tipsy ADULT might accidentally lean on it and break it as well.

Here's hoping this stays in the news - but given the current events, I don't expect that.