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

MyRubyRed

Surely the fact that the child has Downs should not be the issue here. Any child of 3 could have thrown a beaker or toy out of a buggy. Indeed I'm in my 50's and frequently throw my toys out of the pram??

poet123

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

What does the child matter in this case. The parent or carers know that the child has downs syndrome and take measures to care about this.

Is this not child neglect instead by OP? In letting the child get into a situation that can cause upset and distress.

PS Freddie does foster and has cared for children with varying issues, with no ill affect on others!

Pipe and Smoke it.

The Op seems like a very reasonable and thoughtful parent to me if you actually read the OP. How do you socialise children with special needs if you "leave them outside" or effectively isolate them from society?

Of course you need to be vigilant in these cases, more so than normal, but accidents can and do happen, and the Gallery (in this instance, if the painting was unsecured) also bear some responsiblity.

I find your attitude a throw back to the dark ages when children with disabilities were shunned and locked away. I also find your last childish reposte indicative of your level of maturity.

Freddie_Snowbits

poet123 wrote: »

How do you socialise children with special needs if you "leave them outside" or effectively isolate them from society?

Good question and one I would like to answer. How come I seem to foster them a lot?

The first thing I do, is treat them as a normal person and not dwell on their disabilities!

Amazed am I when the SW or others come to intervene and say. I thought .... was disabled!

Pipe full yet?

lucylucky

You are correct in the fact that accidents do happen, however I too fail to see what purpose is being served in mentioning the medical condition of the child?

poet123

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

Good question and one I would like to answer. How come I seem to foster them a lot?

The first thing I do, is treat them as a normal person and not dwell on their disabilities!

Amazed am I when the SW or others come to intervene and say. I thought .... was disabled!

Pipe full yet?

No one is asking you to dwell on their disabilities, and I agree the disability has no bearing in this case as any 3 year old could have acted the same, but your analogy was insensitive and offensive.

"How come you seem to foster them a lot?"......I have absolutely no idea.:eek:

Freddie_Snowbits

poet123 wrote: »

"How come you seem to foster them a lot?"......I have absolutely no idea.:eek:

Glutten for punishment!

Crazy_Jamie

poet123 wrote: »

It doesnt mean it wasn't / or couldn't have been either;)

And thus we reach an impasse of sorts. Now we can but hope that the OP actually returns to the site and posts again, rather than leaving us all to fight it out amongst ourselves

Weirdlittleman

The OP has a responsibility to look after their child and take reasonable actions to prevent incidents. Is allowing a 3 year old child (disabled or otherwise) a solid object with the power to cause a painting to fall around valuables a breach of this responsibility?

This is arguable and one that if the OP wants to dispute should have invited the gallery to take court action against them to recover the loss.

As for losses. The Gallery has the right to recover its losses. In this case its only actual losses are the cost of the glass etc. However they made a counter offer which has been accepted by the OP who then sold it on. In my view the OP if they wanted to dispute this has now gone too far on to be able to do so.

To soften the blow though I would add I bet that any official charges for reglassing etc would have been more than £60

I can only suggest that the OP in addition to any other parents should take more responsibility for their children in future. Whilst it is unfortunate why should people lose out due to other peoples children.

poet123

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

The OP has a responsibility to look after their child and take reasonable actions to prevent incidents. Is allowing a 3 year old child (disabled or otherwise) a solid object with the power to cause a painting to fall around valuables a breach of this responsibility?

This is arguable and one that if the OP wants to dispute should have invited the gallery to take court action against them to recover the loss.

As for losses. The Gallery has the right to recover its losses. In this case its only actual losses are the cost of the glass etc. However they made a counter offer which has been accepted by the OP who then sold it on. In my view the OP if they wanted to dispute this has now gone too far on to be able to do so.

To soften the blow though I would add I bet that any official charges for reglassing etc would have been more than £60

I can only suggest that the OP in addition to any other parents should take more responsibility for their children in future. Whilst it is unfortunate why should people lose out due to other peoples children.

What about the duty of the gallery to ensure all reasonable safety precautions are in place?....is "leaning" a painting worth £260 up against an easel "on the floor, in an area of heavy footfall" doing that? and if not is it not reasonable to suggest they should bear some responsibility.

In fact it is not only reasonable, but actually a legal requirement, as was evidenced by the link given earlier to an MSE query.

Weirdlittleman

poet123 wrote: »

What about the duty of the gallery to ensure all reasonable safety precautions are in place?....is "leaning" a painting worth £260 up against an easel "on the floor, in an area of heavy footfall" doing that? and if not is it not reasonable to suggest they should bear some responsibility.

In fact it is not only reasonable, but actually a legal requirement, as was evidenced by the link given earlier to an MSE query.

Yet the painting survived fine until it had something thrown at it. If it was that unstable it wouldnt have lasted until then.

The OP is straw clutching. Im sure if the easel had fallen on their buggy they would have been in court in seconds to sue for their damages. Also to add how would the OP ever prove their argument about unsafe.