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

solodanceparty

suited-aces wrote: »

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?

The fact is. The child threw the cup. Having downs has nothing to do with what happened, all kids throw things. People need to take responsibility for their children.

poet123

solodanceparty wrote: »

The fact is. The child threw the cup. Having downs has nothing to do with what happened, all kids throw things. People need to take responsibility for their children.

I agree, but equally traders need to ensure their premises and goods are safe for all sections of society,children, disabled, aged.

Whilst this incident was precipitated by a child behaving erratically, it could just as easily have happened by a child just walking past and bumping into an unsecured painting which was propped up at gorund level, or a blind person, or an elderly person with unsteady gait.

Once it has happened, both sides need to assess their part in the outcome, and act accordingly.

To me, in this case that would be that the gallery accept that the painting was unsecured and in a bad spot, and that the parents accept that it may have been better to remove all items that could be thrown from their child before entering the gallery. Those facts accepted, and "blame" apportioned to both sides, it should have been easy to reach a financial settlement both parties could live with.

Another issue that occurs is why the gallery stated their insurance was not an option.....it could be that they have previous claims which also involve blame on their side and didn't wish to claim again.

CrazyJaime, we will have to wat and see!!