132k In Alleged Art Damages. Who's Responsible?

I agree with the artist/gallery. In a place like that you keep children under constant supervision. However, if the work is not insured, more fool the artist/gallery. That's just ridiculous.

My opinion only.

I'm confused. If it's uninsured what insurance company is billing the parents?

___________
Susan Maxwell Schmidt
So-so Board Moderator and
Artist Extraordinaire

Everyone seems to have a case there. I'd hate to be the judge.

Five year old, under age.
Parents....$132K??? on a work that never fetched that??

Gallery? No insurance?

Artist can price things at $132k and no insurance?

I'd actually go against the artist. If it is still his property. If I were the judge I would want the cost of materials and that is what I would award the artist from the parents.

But that is why I am not a lawyer.

Dave

Partially depends on if the artist can prove value by previous sales of their work. If they are unable to do that then the question becomes the extent of damages. I had two works partially burned and one slashed with a knife and it was decided that because the entire works were not destroyed I should only be compensated for the percentage ruined. The fact the damage to each of the works was in the center made no difference. The parents are responsible for the actions and behavior of their child out in public and libel for damages but the question is "What are the extent of the damages?"

The way I'm reading it is that the artist wants 132K from the venue and the venue wants 132K from the parents.

I think all the kid wanted was to feel those boobs!


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

The parents of that small child should be responsible for their child's actions. How much should be sorted out in civil court with a real price assessment.

Who lets their children run wild in an art exhibit area? Who shows a $132,000.00 piece in a community center w/o some kind of railing around it of some kind?

Lot's of "not so smart" going on here.

First is that i cannot believe the nonchalance of those couch creatures!

Holy moley. A child is struggling and drops a statue on himself. Glass! You have to convince yourself to get off your butt?

Not that they have liability. But! Holy Macarel Amos!

In my book whomever displays it, pays it.

Public space you have to plan for the worst. Not to do so is your negligance.

Otherwise, I'm going to display my $30,000 sculptures of a glass of ice tea on marbles.

I agree with Glenn on this, community centers are usually public friendly but that does not mean let your kid run wild!

One thing we do not know, does that sculpture even have a truly flat stable bottom/base?

I mean some winging it artist, even one who gets $150k per piece, might have made something designed to fall over.....not on purpose....but why would anyone else be responsible if that was the case?

Dave

If the work had of fallen and injured or killed the child, who would have liability then? My feeling would be the art center. The only problem there would be ,Would the parents be free of all responsibility?

Ron,

In many cases things that go wrong for a child under a parent's care might legally be criminal, but are generally NOT treated as criminal before the law. Sympathy goes to the parents and child.

Parents generally do not set out to be negligent etc......

Legally for all I know it is still a huge toss up before a judge.

Dave

Probably this will fall smack on the little docent girl at the end, who was supposed to be watching the area but was busy texting her girlfriends (allegedly!).


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

There are a lot of different parties, and issues, in this case. I'm not predicting any particular outcome.

If you want to do an intelligent analysis, you'll have to look at Kansas tort law cases. Have fun.

Disclaimer: As always, not legal advice.

Being a non-parent who's been too often annoyed by obnoxious kids running around in public places, my first reaction is that I hope these parents get nailed and that it gets a lot of publicity. $132K is a lot of dough, though, and if the parents were actually expected to pay it, they'd just declare bankruptcy and the artist would get nothing. If the piece really has that kind of value, it seems like the venue would routinely insure it or at least require the artist to do so. And wouldn't insurance for a gallery cover vandalism and bad behavior by visitors?

Docents are volunteers, they have no liability. Guards are different, but they'd just be terminated.


It will be interesting to see how this turns out. But in cases like this - for example, kids harming animals in a zoo - the institution usually backs off after the lawyers get involved.

I work with children this young, especially at the start of the school year. There are parents who work with their children with how to behave and those parents who are clueless. Often the clueless ones don't think it is possible to instill proper behavior with that young of a child. I can just tell you, it is. If the child has never been taught with how to behave, it will make their early schooling much more difficult than it needs to be.

There's a case to made for liability on every front here. In the meantime the artist should be making lemonade out of lemons. He could reinstall the broken sculpture along with a video of the incident and rename it #metoo before all the publicity is bled out of that movement.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

The parents are primarily at fault IMO, letting your kids around unattended in an art gallery is a major parenting fail. Is Overland responsible for damage to art on display there? They don't say, but it seems so since the artist sent the bill to Overland and Overland sent it to their insurance company and the insurance company is now seeking payment from the parents, so apparently it appears Overland is financially liable for the damage or why would their insurance company pay it any attention? If the art wasn't covered by anybody's insurance it would be up to the artist to get anything he could directly from the parents. As for the rest, I'm guessing there will be a settlement for considerably less than 132k.

David K, the case is currently in the middle of the bluff stage. Everyone involved is saying "You're kidding, right?"


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

That the community center NOT an art gallery, a community center that the family was attending for a wedding reception.

Most wedding receptions I've been a party to, that sucker was going down! Somebody was going to stagger into it of some guy would be trying to pick her up.

The community center is a place for who? The community. And who are they? Families. We know what they have in families? Children! We are well familiar with what children are. They are high intensity balls of electrical wires that are still looking for the socket where they belong. They don't have impulse control. We KNOW this! We Know that they climb on EVERYTHING! Perhaps it is because they are going through their primate stage. But the fact is the fact. And the community center knew it so they put some cheap clips on the bottom (or that is the way the artist did it, in which case, live and learn)

The parents? The same parents that in another discussion each of us would say "Parents are too all over their kids, heck when I was a boy..."

You tell me your mother never turned around at just the right moment when you were reaching up to climb up on the top of the stove there's a handle on the BIG pot of spaghetti sauce.

I don't know from law, but it's not the kid's fault. It's not the parent's fault, It's whoever set the piece up and set the piece down.

"Most wedding receptions I've been a party to, that sucker was going down! Somebody was going to stagger into it of some guy would be trying to pick her up."

Well said!

The artist could easily be seen as the bad guy here. He's the one who permitted his uninsured piece to be placed in the middle of traffic.

The venue should have had (and I bet they do now) a standard "we are not responsible" release for all the art. IOW show at your own risk.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

That's what I was thinking, Dan. He probably signed a waiver for damage, I would imagine. At the very least, the community center should have been insured.

i heard about that. a free standing, un protected statue that could have killed the kid if it landed just right. anyone could have knocked it over. i would be suing them for leaving a hazard like that out in the open.

no one was watching them though. no guards, no docents. no anything around it. that vase was out in the open too. people watched them climb on it twice, using the "handles". i would blame the museum at least 80% for being dumb enough to keep stuff like that in a place people can trip over.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

i'm guessing the community center thought this is a good way to make extra cash, hold an art show or something. and got lazy on the details about vandalism, theft, accidents etc.

i was originally looking for the video of this one but instead came across another where a guy knocked a statue over because he was trying to get a selfie with it.

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/126-year-old-statue-destroyed-by-selfie-493421

there is no video, but the damage was far more severe and it was over a hundred years old. that guy climbed up the statue to get a shot with it.

then again, sometimes i think these are set up to be broken and recorded, just to get insurance money. like a kid punching a hole in a well placed painting, no real cording and it was perfectly placed near a security camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3rxCzZmK8A

seemed really that it was in an odd place and recorded at the same time.


---Mike Savad
http://www.MikeSavad.com

"He probably signed a waiver for damage, I would imagine. "


If he signed a waiver why did Overland send his bill onto their insurance company and why did the insurance pass it on to the parents? If there was a waiver wouldn't Overland had just sent the bill back and remind him he signed a waiver?

As for this being a community center, well it seems quite odd to me such an informal family event, (ya, it's a wedding but look at how everybody is dressed) would be held amongst such valuable art. I'm don't really understand this situation, maybe nobody would that hasn't actually been there.

There are various ways to calculate the value of a piece of art. Sometimes the value of the art is the number on the price tag, sometimes it's not. For purposes of calculating damages, the court will chose a valuation process, and when the decision is issued, we will get to see how the court handled it.

There is not necessarily fault on the part of whoever handled installation of the piece. There will be a standard of care for that, and if the standard of care was met, then most likely it won't be the fault of the installer.

Same thing with parental supervision. There will be a standard of care, and if that was met, then the parents most likely won't be held to be at fault.

Not all waivers are valid in the eyes of an insurance company, or in the eyes of the law. If there was a waiver, it would matter whether it was enforceable. If there was insurance, and the insurance company decided to pay a claim, the insurance company might decide to go after the party it believed to be at fault for contribution.

Disclaimer: As always, not legal advice.

I bet that lazy unfit mother lets her kid run wild in restaurants too. I hope she pays through the nose.

"it's a wedding but look at how everybody is dressed"

Maybe the reception was in a reserved room of the community center but the lobby was still be open to the general public. Or often the reception is a lot less formal than the wedding.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

So not a gallery, but a community center. And it's a wedding. LOL. Like Uther said, that sculpture was doomed.

As a musician, i worked hundreds of weddings. There is no human gathering, no event, at which human behavior will sink lower. The adults are stressed out, angry, exhausted and brain dead. Some are drinking and can't handle it. Old wounds reopened, resentments rekindled. The kids are facing hours of confinement and are moving past tantrums and into frenzy. Everyone just wants to go home.

Ok, I know, they're not all like that, yours was wonderful. But don't put your art at a wedding unless it's edible.

Gallery fault. I just went to our local free museum. One person wearing suit in each area with clearly marked protected area. If someone cross the line the guy in suit sternly says something. This gallery not following standards set by this Industry.

As my mother would say, "This is why we can't keep nice things. " (She meant me. She was right.)

Wonder if there was a do not touch notice anywhere?

All together now: "a community center". Not a gallery. Weddings in same facility.

I've seen people at weddings frantically look for a safe place to barf, and not find one in time. Fights break out. Drunks will go up on the band stand when you're on break, grab an instrument and wave it around. Women in heels have too much champagne and fall down chasing the bouquet.

And I'm just getting started with the stories.

$132k sculpture on a pedestal in the next room? It's a setup for YouTube.

Dan, I thought you played weddings?

I only play one or two a year, Jim, sometimes none -- but they are as you describe.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Back in the day i might have done 3 in a week. The whole spectrum, from blue collars in VFWs to the ultra rich in the ballrooms. I might have material for a book.

And Dan, there was NOTHING a serious drunk wanted to more than get behind that set of drums. So don't wander too far on the breaks.

"And Dan, there was NOTHING a serious drunk wanted to more than get behind that set of drums. So don't wander too far on the breaks."

Oh yeah, I'm aware :-|


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Once you install a sculpture with that price tag it becomes a gallery!

A price tag does not necessarily mean "true value". Otherwise this piece would have been found in a serious gallery... not one that is a step above the local fair.

By the way... I love these kind of exhibits and fair exhibits. I also understand the limitations of them.

Wonder if they'd settle for taking the kid. I understand some people actually like them.

___________
Susan Maxwell Schmidt
So-so Board Moderator and
Artist Extraordinaire

The community centre is responsable for insuring the safety of the sculpture and public; by not having any adequate health and safety precautions in place, they should be made liable to pay for any damages incurred.

Also the artist should have adequate insurance on artwork that is considered to be valuble for fire, theft and damage.

The parents are not art appraiser or dealers as the child is not an art expert at the level of finger painting perhaps.

However if the parents do become liable for damages then the child should compensate the artist with money deducted from his weekly allowance.

If the child's allowance is not high enough to pay for the damages, then the property of the child should come in to play, by confiscating any valuables and placed in to a public auction, this includes toys, mobiles, high chairs and sporting equipment, such as baby bouncers, also rattles, designer baby clothes; or declare a type of baby boy bankruptcy.

Or the child could plea bargain his case for a full pardon with an apology scribble note attached.

Or the artist could take some responsibility for leaving his art in a community centre, knowing full well that children like to play and run around in it, unsupervised.

This last idea is the one I would vote for if it was up to me to decide but of course it isn't, this topic or case is something for the courts to decide.

We were all kids once upon a time or did we forget? Been publicly humiliated and beaten for doing "bad" things but never was the spirit of being a kid cured. If my kid wasn't trained before he left home I sure wasn't doing it in public to save face. He was never beaten and always pretty well behaved. Did the people attending even have a clue about the possible value of the sculpture?

Tres bien, Alan!

The child has no responsibility for his actions but the parents do. Depending on a variety of things they may be libel for the damages but like most of these stories there is a lot of information we just don't have.

Just a few hours ago I was looking at the Scottish Crown Jewels, needles to say that they were on display for all to see and very well protected behind thick bullet proof glass.

Point being, if there is no reasonable precautions in place then expect something none agreeable to happen.

The Scottish Crown Jewels? Are they different from the British Crown Jewels in the Tower of London? Where the Star of Africa lives? I may have drooled on the glass just a little.

___________
Susan Maxwell Schmidt
So-so Board Moderator and
Artist Extraordinaire

The room is not a gallery. It is a lobby of a community center. Many government owned buildings display art. Usually local art by artists that are not well known or established. Generally under some sort of "art in public places" program with some limited government funding, if any. If you are an artist with any experience at all you should know the liability going in. Kids running around and drunks are just every day hazards of a community center. The artist was given an opportunity to display his work.Unless there was an agreement on liability, he could only assume he was displaying at his own risk. And the risks are not hard to see. The community center has a responsibility to take in art that would not be easily destroyed. The kid could have got hurt. So there is maybe some responsibility on their part. But the artist knew it was a lobby. The parents surely should have kept the kids under control. But really, wasn't the kid just being a kid? I have displayed art in many public places and many artists I know also have. Stuff gets damaged. You take the loss. Now the whole world knows who the artist is and that his work is worth a lot of money. At least he got that.

Don't Touch The Art...

Here's another film from 2016 of kids breaking a glass artwork at the Shanghai Museum while the parents film them:

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/shanghai-glass-museum-smashed-503615

Very interesting video, Ed. Kids may be hard on art. The artist can sue for 200.00 dollars per hour from an attorney that won't get the job done or the money for the art. This would be a hard case to win. Most artists sign a wavier that the business that they are showing their work at is not responsible. Parents are usually not that strict with something that looks like a toy. Kids are usually destructive, or the one's I baby sat for ten years were.

I stand corrected. Not all art is meant to be displayed in galleries. If and when you visit San Diego the Airport has a Master Art plan. Here is one of the pieces I had a couple of friends pose with. So my defense for the above is: Art that is not meant to be interactive is safe guarded.
http://arts.san.org/portfolio-item/at-the-gate/

Hold on a second...if the piece was uninsured, what insurance company sent the threat???
Furthermore, the operative phrase is " could be." The letter from the insurance company told the parents they " could be" liable.
If indeed, they were, wouldn't a letter from a real insurance company tell them they are liable?
Sounds like a whole lotta bullying tactics to me... I can just see someone saying "we'll send a scary letter and they will pay up and we can avoid taking it to court to recup the loss."
Next time, insure the art, for Pete's sake!

As an aside, my art is only insured when it is at MY residence. If it is shown elsewhere, it must be insured by the venue. If it is not, it is a deal breaker.

Wow! So if the little kid had been seriously injured I'm guessing the artist and the community center would have been accused of fault.

On the surface, the parents are at fault.

But the true value of the sculpture is not what's assigned, but will be calculated as any appraisal is; providence, examples of prior sales by that same artist, examples of similar recent sales by other artists in the same scale and medium.

So if there is a lawsuit, I would expect the parents' lawyer to bring all that up. My house isn't worth a million dollars just because I think it is.

Lemme sort this out again....
the city didn't insure it....so what insurance company sent a threatening letter to the parents?

A piece of art valued at that price, would need a special policy or a rider at very least ( like other valuables) to be insured. I'm guessing that the art didn't have any.
What insurance comapny sent this letter again?

Great post Uther.

Marlene, that is some great advice to all artists.

If the artist never sold work for the price he stated the courts will never award him the money they are asking for. Artist deals with this all the time-fighting copyright infringements. Yes, the law states they are awarded $140 000 per infringement but try and collect that if you work has not sold. What if the child had been hurt? Who would have been liable?

"the city didn't insure it....so what insurance company sent a threatening letter to the parents?"

Marlene, I think you are missing something. Here is an excerpt from the article;

"Overland Park’s insurance company sent a letter accusing Goodman and her husband of negligence for failing to keep an eye on the boy, the paper reported."

Why would Overland Park's insurance company be involved if Overland Park didn't bear some kind of responsibility for protection of the artwork?

I wonder if the artists displaying their art there knew that the area would be used that way.

Right, DavdK and the letter stated 'could be liable'.
If they knew fer shure, they would have said so. Scare tactic.
i wonder if Overland Park Insurance covers such valuables in a general policy. I bet not.
In light of it being a reception, I wonder how different this story would read if a drunk adult guest did the same thing? In my experience, little boys are very much like drunkards in behavior and movements.


How heavy could a glass piece that size weigh...and it was only secured with 'clips'???

Did anyone notice the grown man reach up and touch the bust as he walked by? that was at :16. The young boy with him does the same. The young boy that pulled it over was not with him but with the next man who did motion for the boy to come away. who knows if anything was said about it drawing attention to it . yes the kids should have been supervised, the artwork should have been secure. it seems he held it for a good bit of time before it fell. makes me wonder how heavy it really was. he did seem he might have gotten a cut or scrape on his head from it.

I highly doubt that they will be able to force the parents to pay for the sculpture. First of all, there were no signs saying not to touch, there were no barricades around the sculpture to keep it safe and it was not secured to keep it from falling over. As we see in the video, it is right on the isle, several people touched it and the fact that it was not secured properly, posed a hazard to anyone walking past it. If anyone is responsible for it, it would be whoever set the sculpture up.

It could also be that the artist did insure it but the insurance company is giving a shot at someone else paying for it. I'm kind of surprised the insurance company didn't refuse to pay out as soon as they saw that video.

I don't like to hear stuff like this...with no ending!