Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, June 18, 2018

A child's accident that broke a piece of art may cost a family in Kansas City $132,000. Sarah Goodman and her husband and child were at a wedding reception at Overland Park's Tomahawk Ridge Community Center. Sarah told the Kansas City Star her family was getting ready to leave and was saying goodbye to the bride's father and they heard a noise on May 19. When they went to investigate, a glass sculpture was on the ground. Goodman told The Star, "He probably hugged it. Maybe my son hugged a torso because he's a loving, sweet nice boy who just graduated from preschool."

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

They should 100% have to cover the damage. Either teach your kids to not act like idiots or don't let them run around unsupervised.

#1 | Posted by qcp at 2018-06-18 11:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The area is not closed at all in the video.

#2 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-06-18 11:46 AM | Reply

I'd get Travelers to pay for it. That's what I do.

And then I'd send a bill to the city for the damages for the kid's face.

not because I think the city is negligent...but as a way to leave the Goodman's alone.

I agree the Goodman's owe for this....but their carrier should step up and pay.

#3 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-18 12:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


@#2 ... The area is not closed at all in the video....

I took "closed area" to mean that the room was closed off to the public for the event, and not that no one was allowed in the room. A minor distinction but one, I suspect, that may be necessary for the insurance company to make.

Regardless, the one boy who appeared to topple the statue looks to be completely unsupervised while he was in the room with the statue.

#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-06-18 12:06 PM | Reply

I suspect the letter from Travelers to the parents is a reservation of rights letter which is a warning that the claim may be denied if it's determined that this approached the level of "negligent".

#5 | Posted by eberly at 2018-06-18 12:08 PM | Reply

Stupidity abounds all around in this incident.

#6 | Posted by 726 at 2018-06-18 12:09 PM | Reply

If the boy had been hurt, there'd be lawsuits about the negligent placement and securing of the statue causing his injury.

#7 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2018-06-18 12:54 PM | Reply

If the boy had been hurt, there'd be lawsuits about the negligent placement and securing of the statue causing his injury.

#7 | POSTED BY KWRX25 AT 2018-06-18 12:54 PM | FLAG:

He was, and there will be.

#8 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-06-18 01:10 PM | Reply

I took "closed area" to mean that the room was closed off to the public for the event, and not that no one was allowed in the room.

#4 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2018-06-18 12:06 PM | FLAG:

That's what the description usually means. However there are people sitting there drinking in the corner on the video, no barricades, no nothing to indicate it's not supposed to be used.

#9 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-06-18 01:12 PM | Reply

@#9 ... However there are people sitting there drinking in the corner on the video, .

Could be wedding reception guests, and not the general public. The area could have been closed to the general public while the wedding reception was taking place. That's how I viewed the scene.

Regardless, the one boy who appeared to topple the statue looks to be completely unsupervised while he was in the room with the statue.

#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-06-18 02:51 PM | Reply

The parents shouldn't have to pay a dime. You set up what looks like a playground to a kid, the kid climbs on something and breaks it? F' you, pay some security guard $20 for the day to make sure ---- dont get broken.

#11 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-06-18 02:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Could be wedding reception guests, and not the general public.
#10 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2018-06-18 02:51 PM | FLAG:

The person and her kid were wedding guests, not the general public.

#12 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-06-18 03:01 PM | Reply

Strange that they'd leave a $132,000 glass sculpture where it could be hit by someone in a wheelchair, a stroller, or a kid. Do they normally leave six figure precious items out in the open like that without cordons? Or docents?

And it's not even a Chihuly.

#13 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-06-18 03:04 PM | Reply

Goodman told The Star, "He probably hugged it. Maybe my son hugged a torso because he's a loving, sweet nice boy who just graduated from preschool."

Yeah, I'm sure that's it.

Or maybe your unattended poorly disciplined brat was climbing on things because he was an unattended poorly disciplined brat.

But yeah, you shouldn't bear any responsibility for that because there wasn't a "do not touch sign" or nobody has asked how your little spawn is doing.

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2018-06-18 03:07 PM | Reply

Couldn't we just send the kid to a tent city?

#15 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2018-06-18 03:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

You set up what looks like a playground to a kid

I don't think anyone, even a kid, would claim that a glass sculpture on a lone table looks like a playground.

They might play on it anyway, because kids are stupid, but they would never say it looked like a playground unless they are liars. Which leads me to ask why you'd say something that stupid.

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2018-06-18 03:21 PM | Reply

the kid was to young to be unsupervised in a public place..that being said i'd think it might be sort of like leaving a ladder where kids can climb it as
opposed to the playground analogy which would demand that you fence in a swimming pool. happened in that bastion of republican 'personal responsibility' Overland Park Kansas

#17 | Posted by ABlock at 2018-06-18 03:57 PM | Reply

If you allow kids in then they should be prepared for what the critters can do. I'm not saying parents shouldn't have their kids behave but it only takes a second for these little dummies to find trouble. The museum should consider itself lucky the kid didn't get severely hurt or killed.

#18 | Posted by patron at 2018-06-18 08:40 PM | Reply

The parents shouldn't have to pay a dime. You set up what looks like a playground to a kid, the kid climbs on something and breaks it? F' you, pay some security guard $20 for the day to make sure ---- dont get broken.
#11 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2018-06-18 02:59 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 1

Agreed - even car lots have people watching you like vultures. To a child that object is a beautiful toy-like thing. A pity that it's destroyed, but it's life has actually been somewhat elevated to our consciousness from it's death.

Also, I specifically despise putting heavy objects in such delicate balance without safely securing them. Having lived through kittens and lost several beautiful objects and plants is YOUR FAULT, not the children innocently playing. He didn't want to shatter glass on himself, obviously.

#19 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2018-06-18 08:59 PM | Reply

Jesus, that was a mighty fragile piece of glass art. Should be stored in a protective case. -- Travelers.

#20 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-06-19 06:28 AM | Reply

The insurance company is probably sending letters to all concerned in an effort to get out of paying. Does the insurance have "breakage" coverage? If it does then the insurance company should pay the claim, why else do you buy such insurance?

#21 | Posted by danni at 2018-06-19 08:11 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort