Tri-Banter wrote:
If a tv or cabinet toppled over in a home and crushed a kid (because they climbed it) there is private condemnation of the parents for not securing the object. ---
Agreed. If it's your kid and your home, if a tv cabinet or something else happens that injures the kid, it's your fault. However, if you take that same kid to someone else's house or other locale, are you expecting that place to strap everything down just because you're visiting? If your kid breaks something in that house, don't you feel the responsibility to make amends, either financially or replacement?
To most extents, yes. I was just explaining to the youngest yesterday to be careful in a tourist shop because if we knock something off the shelf then we have to pay for it.
I don’t expect other people to secure their tv if they don’t have kids. On the other hand the govt does require those same people to secure their pool, kids or no kids. I suppose it’s all down to foreseeable risk and consequences.
If visiting people it’s not unreasonable that kids may want to run around outside whilst adults talk. It’s not unreasonable that kids may sneak out the back when adults think they are inside. Hence the requirement to fence all pools. But part of the govts argument is that you also need to ensure random kids can’t stray into your backyard and fall in; which is where I think it’s stupid. Regardless it’s all about the foreseeable risk that someone could fall in a pool and drown.
In the case of the art, it’s in a venue that the public can attend as part of a function. It’s of extreme value. If I’m insuring that object then I haven’t done my job well if the premiums have not been set to cover the very real likelihood that someone from the public damages that art. I shouldn’t rely on the idiot having coverage. What if it’s a tourist who flies out the next day? If I really don’t want to pay out then I’d want the owner to put additional measures in place to better protect it.
A museum protects its valuable pieces from damage by roping or casings. They know the public is there and regardless of parents being there it’s unrealistic to expect supervision to the second.
Likewise parents attending a wedding at a venue aren’t likely to expect extreme value art in a foyer (ie leaving their kids at home). Most wouldn’t know value anyway (thus not necessarily prevent them wandering into a foyer out of sight). Had it been some standard vase etc then the parents prob would have shelled out the ‘$500’ that you’d reasonably expect it to cost. Just like my tourist shop example - I might not be as vigilant because I’d be fine with covering the nominal amount. If it was more evident that the vase/art etc had extreme value then you bet your ass I’d be more concerned about my kids being near it alone.
Ultimately I see it as dual responsibilities. As a parent my vigilance should be commensurate with the level of foreseeable risk/consequences. As an insurer the security and premiums should be commensurate with the value/likelihood of damage.