But, a well-behaved child might still have touched the thing too hard. Even an adult might have.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You break it, you buy it
- Thread starter David1967
- Start date
In the museum where I volunteer, we watch our buildings & exhibits to a far greater extent.
But then....our exhibits can kill...& have (while still in service eons ago).
Here's on exhibit the kid won't tip over....
Last edited:
But, a well-behaved child might still have touched the thing too hard. Even an adult might have.
If it is a piece of art, and doesn't have a 'please touch' sign on it, then it shouldn't be touched.... basic.
Ya but, someone might have backed into it eventually. It is my opinion that it was set up there for exactly that.
I would like 135,000 that that piece of junk. Who wouldn't?
<snicker>
Have any boys?
<snicker>
Things exist to be touched.
(Except for bears.)
This is why they sell glue at hardware stores.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Oh there is definitely a chance. But there is also a chance that they won't recover. It certainly is not cut and dry either way.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Kansas has a modified comparative negligence, they would likely nit be able to recover full cost. Kansas also has a 5k cap on parental liability unless the damages are a result of Neglect. Not sure what Kansas laws regarding using reasonableness standards are for children, not sure about the child's age, not sure how frequently children played in the area, there are too many unknown facts, not sure where the adult supervision was. There are too many unknown facts, but I doubt this is a case where the parents are going to have to pay the full amount.
I agree and that’s true, we are just seeing a super short clip. Who knows how long they were left alone?
Curious George
Veteran Member
My point was that there are just too many unknown facts. The laws are actually made for sorting this type of thing out.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
While I agree that parents should keep their brats in check, If the piece was truly worth that much, then why wasn't it better secured?
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
On a case-by-case basis, "art" is literally only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. I would say they should only be able to attempt to charge the parents with as much as they could have actually gotten for it. Not sure how you'd go about fairly determining that, but the problem otherwise is that anybody could charge whatever the heck they want for any piece of anything they want as long as they just don't put a price-tag on it, call it "art" and then put it out and wait for someone's kid to destroy it.