Were his parents there?
Were they watching him clamber about the dolphin?
No offense, just want to know what happened.

Have you ever been there?

It is a tourist destination visited by, literally, 15 MILLION PEOPLE A YEAR:

https://sfport.com/waterfront-visitors

Now, let's say you run a public facility which has 15 million visitors a year. That will include crazy people, intoxicated people, disabled and blind people, and it will include many families visiting a place which is designed to overwhelm the senses with food, attractions, street performances, harbor seals - all kinds of stuff going on.

You can guarantee that among 15 million visitors, many with children, in a place designed to distract people, that small children will do all kinds of things, and it only takes a moment's inattention for those things to happen.

The general assumption incumbent on people who are responsible for the safety of structures in such places is that, sure, kids might hurt themselves doing all sorts of things, but to place a statue in such a place where the consequences of a person weighing maybe around 30 pounds can cause it to topple and crush such a person to death is utterly fucking irresponsible.

Which suggests an especially high level of inattention by this family. You can't argue a 1 in 15 million chance is evidence of negligence on the part of the the market. On the other hand how many times has the family been there? Seems obvious that the problem is the family that refused to supervise their child.

I do take comfort in knowing to a high degree of certainty that you have obviously never been entrusted with any aspect of public safety.

30 pounds of force could be easily exerted by the wind alone. Hell a quarter inch bolt is capable of handling over a ton in a straight pul. Sounds to me like it wasn't even attached. If it has been there a while, its still neglicence not checking for corrosion'
, especially around salt water, or not using appropiate materials. I took my step grandaughter who is a year and a half old to the local zoo last week and watched her run and hug the gorilla stautue, but I know they are not dumb enough to no have it well secured.

Parents like to let them explore. They'll stay right there, in case the child falls, but I don't think most of us anticipate that a 6-foot metal statue in a public square wouldn't be anchored down. That would seem to be the most minimal of precautions for what is, after all, a very "attractive nuisance."

I once had a summer job surveying a city's parks for such issues. Municipal insurance companies now doubt would prefer that someone on the city payroll check for these problems before they kill someone.

That's happened several times in the last few years. Are you certain that the zoo is also the party at fault for not making the walls more difficult to climb. Did the parents of the kids have ANY responsibility for their kid's actions?

I find the children at zoos annoying. Children should not be taken to zoos.

Zoos are just as much a place for kids as community centers, Fisherman's Wharf and other public places.

ON EDIT: I find children in most public places to be annoying. But that doesn't mean parents have to stop taking them out in public.

Last edited Sun Jun 17, 2018, 11:03 PM - Edit history (1)

No public facility should have to waste a second thought about what might happen if a child got loose.

But seriously, you are right. They should be separated from their children and placed in camps.

pesky toddlers.

Do you have a link?

The point I was making is that no public venue can ever be made safe enough for kids without responsible parental supervision. If your child is left to run around alone in the art display part of a community center that is not part of the event you are attending it's your fault for letting them be where they shouldn't be in the first place. If your child is climbing all over a statue in a public space that's your fault for letting them climb all over something they shouldn't. Statues are not playgrounds and parents should ALWAYS assume that they are not for kids to climb until the are certain it is okay to do so. Aside from ensuring the safety of YOUR child you have the responsibility to ensure that child doesn't do property damage or injure someone else.

At what point do you stop holding the parents responsible for their kid's actions? There is no point at which I believe a toddler's or a 5 or 6 year-old's parents are not responsible for the child's safety and behavior. Especially when they are in unfamiliar spaces where they do not often go - such as the Zoo or a wedding reception at a community center.

It is NOT the responsibility of a public venue to think of every possible unsafe behavior a child may undertake and put in place counter-measures. It is the PARENT'S responsibility to ensure the safety of THEIR child by ensuring their child behaves appropriately in new and strange places. Otherwise, leave them at home. And if you cannot afford a baby-sitter then stay home and skip the event.

It is, and should always be, reasonable to assume parents will make their kids behave. Otherwise, we need to put everything behind Plexiglas barriers to account for the small number of kids who cannot be controlled by their parents. Notice I said "controlled." This means the parents control their mis-behaving kids as well as their behaving one. About 90+ percent of the time parents do this. So it must be a thing that people feel is necessary.

under it wouldn't be adequate either.

I haven't heard of a child climbing over a tall wall or fence. If you have, I'd like to see the link.

parents have had a panicked moment or two when this happens...safety should be such that kids can't climb walls as it is negligent not to. If a two year old could unseat a large statue. Clearly it was not secured properly.

than little kids...where are their companions, why aren't they being supervised?

The parents should sue...it was carelessness...if a little kid could cause it to fall so could a strong gust of wind.

area where kids have climbed on the statue for years...a strong gust of wind could have brought it down.

I hope some people will take notice and correctly lay blame at the feet of the people who failed to secure this statue.

It was a hazard, and the child died.

I'm so very disappointed that people feel it is the responsibility of people who are not the parents of these kids to ensure those kids are safe. Of the many hundreds of thousands of kids that visit only one has managed to topple the statue.

Also, if this were an adult instead of a kid most people here would be calling it Darwinism.

I mean, duh, the only people who have to worry about defective airbags are people who drive into things.

You know how I deal with defective airbags? I DONT CRASH MY CAR! And if someone is coming at me with their car - I GET OUT OF THE WAY!

If, instead of an airbag, they placed a gun in the steering column, we would soon be rid of bad drivers.

Or, take those people in Florida who drove under a bridge while it was being built. They should have just taken a different road but, no, they wanted to drive under a bridge while it was being built.

But people do get in crashes that are not their fault, and still somehow the airbag gets deployed (or not, if it's defective!). People make mistakes, too. The people in FL who drove under that bridge? Well, I seem to remember the road was open so one would expect safety precautions had been taken, but accidents happen. Doesn't make them dumb, just unlucky.

It is the parents' responsibility, AND the statue owners too. If you put a statue in public and it's not secure and kills a kid, you share blame. It's Fisherman's Wharf; kids are there to have fun and they will climb things, and assume some things that are not meant for climbing are meant for climbing. Even if their parents are watching them and doing their best.

"The store violated a city code and was cited for placing an object or merchandise on a sidewalk where it impedes pedestrian traffic, Shyy said."

The people who put the statue there should've had it secure, AND the parents should've kept a closer watch on their kid. But you know what? Kids will do things randomly and quickly, and shouldn't have to pay for it with their life if the thing they're climbing on isn't properly secured. This is especially true if it might look like an inviting climbing structure; if you put something like that out in public, I think you should expect some kid to climb on it eventually.

'Also, if this were an adult instead of a kid most people here would be calling it Darwinism.'
Except it was a kid, and the store violated city code with where they'd placed it, AND it wasn't secure.

You have to have them killed before they reproduce.

Are you saying the people making the 'Darwin Award' jokes should be killed before they reproduce? Otherwise I am not following you.

At least, I'm pretty sure I'm following JBH correctly on this thread ...

He's yanking everyone's chain and nobody's really catching on ...

I just catch on cause I'm kinda the same way sometimes

I had not followed other JBH comments so it was kinda out of context for me

but in this venue it can be hard to discern without sarcasm tags sometimes

and they just stuck it on the sidewalk where it didn't belong. And now they're going to be held responsible for that.

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Boy-2-killed-by-falling-statue-at-Fisherman-s-5539373.php

Capt. David Lazar of the Central Station says the incident was particularly troubling because his officers have been warning merchants not to place statues and large objects outside on the sidewalk.

"For a couple of years now the merchants have been warned," Lazar said. "It is a violation of municipal police code."

when they stuck that hazardous thing out on the sidewalk.

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Boy-2-killed-by-falling-statue-at-Fisherman-s-5539373.php

for what their "brat" "ankle biter" did to that poor statue. Because so many on this site knew better when they were toddlers. Kept their hands in their pockets, and never touched or climbed on anything ever.

About the "Expensive artwork"-- referring no doubt to the glass statue that fell on a child and the parents got a bill for the statue.

I am kind of shocked that municipalities aren't much more careful. Just plain old homeowners know to be more cautious than that. I know my insurance company would certainly balk if I didn't make any attempt to secure dangerous things around my property. I had to have a tree taken out because it was tipping close to my neighbor's shed.

and know better than to put a flimsy thing like that fugly glass statue out in a public area like that with no signs or barriers of any kind.

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Boy-2-killed-by-falling-statue-at-Fisherman-s-5539373.php

The article never mentions the final outcome.

This doesn't say what the outcome was. I suspect there was a settlement.

https://news.artnet.com/market/toddler-killed-by-falling-sculpture-at-gallery-2-209962

According to documents obtained by Courthouse News, the family was on vacation in the bay area when, walking on the sidewalk past the gallery, Kayson “was foreseeably attracted to the Dolphin Statue and made brief physical contact with it, at which point the Dolphin Statue immediately toppled over onto him.”

The boy remained conscious briefly, crying before being removed from underneath the 100-pound sculpture. He then fell unconscious and remained unresponsive as EMTs attempted to revive him on the sidewalk in front of the Majestic Collection, according to the family’s account. A previous account of the incident claimed that he was treated for a nosebleed at the scene and then transported to a hospital where he died of internal injuries.

According to the family’s complaint, the sculpture was in violation of city codes, which limit the height of objects placed outside of stores on the public walkway, to four feet. Any sidewalk displays require a permit. The Sheltons claim that by displaying the sculpture on the sidewalk the “defendants assume and exercise actual possession and control over the public sidewalk and essentially treat it as an extension of the retail showroom of Majestic.”

And by “most” I mean north of 90%.