A mishap at an art gallery - broken painting - Gallery owner refused to listen

Busbybank

We decided to have a look around a gallery because we enjoy art, as we looked around our son threw his cup out of the pushchair which hit the back of a painting which was leaning against something on the floor(possibly an easel). The painting fell forward breaking the glass. The frame was undamaged as was the painting.

We were told by the gallery owner that we needed to pay for the painting in full. We wanted to pay for the damage and we tried to negotiate with him asking him to contact the artist, look at your insurance, pay for the damage only etc. He did not contact the artist and failed to provide details (other than the name) for us to contact the artist, he said his insurance excess was too much and that we had to pay for the painting in full £260.00.

Through our own means we traced the artist and she bought the painting back from us for £140.00 reducing her costs by £60.00 to cover damage. This leaves £60.00 profit/commission which the gallery owner has made from us.

Our son, who threw his cup, has Down Syndrome and is 3. He is quite unpredictable in his behaviour and although a lovely and charming little boy has a habit of suddenly throwing things (we thought he would not do this in the gallery as we had tired him out in the morning). This is the first time he has damaged something and because of it our confidence in taking him to visit places like regular families has been shattered.

We wanted to pay for the damage he caused and have said this all along. We do not think it is right for us to pay the commission on the painting and the cost of traveling to see the artist which could have been avoided at the time our son caused the damage if the artist had been contacted. We calculate that we went 12 miles out of our way when traveling home.

We appreciate that the owner have overheads to cover and cannot afford people to come in and damage the goods he is selling. However in this instance he would be getting the painting back to re-sell, he left the painting in a high footfall area leaning against another item which in itself (we believe) is negligent.

Since we contacted the owner in writing, who later replied this...

"We have received your letter and noted it's content. However we are not in a position now or in the future to make any form of reimbursement to you for the damage that was sustained in the Gallery at no fault of our own.

The Gallery contains as you know many works that are by there nature expensive pieces. The work that was damaged was locked into an easel with three retaining screw blocks. (this is not true)

We have many pieces as you are aware in the gallery and to date have sustained no damage from parents with children, as most parents who have children that may be prone to damage leave them outside the gallery.

We suggest as we did at the time that you that you possibly make a claim on your insurance as the damage was as a direct result of your child throwing an object into a picture. This is an event that we cannot cater for and had the picture been as other work is wall mounted the same result would have occurred.

We will not enter into any further correspondence in this matter."

Do we have any grounds to claim this money back and is he breaking any laws under the sale of goods acts or under any acts? Our credit card provider and trading standards can't help us.

I am asking if this owner acted within the law? We suspect he has, but would value your thoughts...

Lube

I dont think they can make a profit through a accident only recover any losses

You say "The painting fell forward breaking the glass. The frame was undamaged as was the painting"

so surely its only the glass that needs paying

pug_in_a_bed

oh dear, what an unpleasant situation.

Can I just clarify you have already paid the gallery the money?
If this is the case I think you are a bit stuck to be honest.

However, someone with a bit more knowledge might be able to help.

Try not to let it knock your confidence; lots of kids, regardless of any health issues, are throwers! My nephew certainly is lol, on one memorable occasion hitting a check out girl on right on the forehead with his cup lol

At least you got some of the money back anyway

geri1965_2

It's probably too late now, but if you have household contents insurance then your insurers would have dealt with it under the personal liability section - they would have repaired it and definitely not paid out for the painting in full. It's worth bearing this in mind for anything else your son damages.

As you have now paid the gallery, you are in a weak bargaining position and I would probably just put it down to experience.

poet123

I think that if you were confident that both the frame and painting were undamaged then you should have only agreed to pay for theglass. If the painting was unsecured in a public place, and your son was restrained in a buggy, then the whole incident was an unfortunate accident, and the gallery owner should not profit from that.

The gallery have a duty of car to protect the public, what if the buggy had caught the easel and the painting had fallen onto your son? The weight of a cup would not have dislodged a painting held in place by 3 screws unless they were loose, which constitutes negligence.

Add into the mix your son's condition and I feel the gallery owner has been very intractable. Would the artist confirm the frame and painting are undamaged? if so, I would get that in writing and contact them again and show them this confirmation.

Other than that you have 2 options, either to actually use, or to use as a bargaining tool, the press....and/or the small claims court.

puppet1984

Busbybank wrote: »

We have many pieces as you are aware in the gallery and to date have sustained no damage from parents with children, as most parents who have children that may be prone to damage leave them outside the gallery.

so if your children may be prone to damage you should chain them to the fence outside?

RadoJo

So basically, they have a 'you break it, you buy it' policy, which isn't uncommon. Are you querying the price of the picture?

With regards to the fact that your son has Down Syndrome, I don't really see the relevance - any child could have damaged the painting and there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that a 'regular' family (as you put it) wouldn't find themselves in the same situation, so I would chalk it up to experience and not let it damage your confidence.

RadoJo

puppet1984 wrote: »

so if your children may be prone to damage you should chain them to the fence outside?

Are you suggesting it's unreasonable to expect parents to cover the cost of any damage their children do to others' property?

funkycoldribena

I would have told them to send me the receipt for the glass.Why on earth did you put yourself through so much hassle??

Crazy_Jamie

poet123 wrote: »

Other than that you have 2 options, either to actually use, or to use as a bargaining tool, the press....and/or the small claims court.

On what grounds? The way I see it the OP's child has damaged an item belonging to someone else. It was clearly an accident, yet nonetheless one that the OP has rightly admitted liability for. The crucial part here is that the OP actually paid the £260 that was being demanded. There was no obligation to do that at the time. If the amount of loss was to be queried then this could and should have been done before paying. As the matter has been effectively settled and the OP accepted the price I fail to see the recourse that is available. Just chalk it down to experience and move on.

This leaves £60.00 profit/commission which the gallery owner has made from us.

On this point, presumably this £60 profit would have been made had the painting been sold in any event, so it is part of the loss suffered and is recoverable.

suited-aces

RadoJo wrote: »

Are you suggesting it's unreasonable to expect parents to cover the cost of any damage their children do to others' property?

Are you saying it's reasonable to make a profit from an accident caused by a 3 year old with downs after there was negligence?