General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: 5 year old's touch sends on-loan sculpture crashing to floor. Kansas City bills parents 132K [View all]People can whine that the expensive art shouldnt have been there all day long. But that doesnt matter. It was there, legally, and had people acted responsibly it wouldnt have been damaged.
Sure, a pure accident could have happened. Someone slips and falls and hits it. A blind person runs into it, etc. In those cases the insurance company would pay and be done.
In this case there was negligence. The child attempted to climb on it or attempted to pull it off the pedestal. The child was unsupervised at the time. So the negligent party in this case was the parent.
They can argue thats partially mitigated by how its displayed. But how it was displayed was perfectly fine for expected behaviors with an art display. And had they maintained control of the child the damage wouldnt have happened, so they beat the majority if not all the responsibility.
That people think parents who let their child run unsupervised and damage things bear zero responsibility amazes me.