Kid Breaks Statue At Museum, Parents Charged $132,000

June 19, 2018


This is a video news report about a child in a Kansas City community center museum who hugs a bust of a busty woman ("Mama?"), which then topples over on top of him (at which point he really gets his face right between those breasts) and onto the floor, breaking it. I like how the newswoman says the boy's mother "rushes over to help him," because that is arguably the most casual rush I've ever seen. In the mother's own words:

"Maybe this is like $800 or something. No, it's $132,000. I'm sorry, we're finished here."

Man, I still remember the first time I broke a penis off a statue at a museum. "How old were you?" Like six. "And the most recent time?" Not even a month ago. "Old habits die hard." I've kinda started my own little museum in a sock drawer.

Keep going for the video.

Thanks to Jake, who agrees somebody needs to invest in one of those kid leashes.

  • Michael W. Perry

    Sorry, but if this museum permits little children inside, it needs to little-children-proof it art. It should not have been able to fall over.

  • Danny Deluxe

    Its not even a *museum*, its a community center that had an art
    installation. You know, a community center... those places children
    routinely are that have no business displaying unsecured $130k glass

  • Legion681

    Parenting = dead.

  • Munihausen

    $132k and not-behind a tensa-barrier? Hmm.....This will settle.

  • James Mcelroy

    say whatever you want, but as a parent i am responsible for my kids, if my kids break something, that's on me. Your kid breaks something, it's on you. If you know your kid needs to be constantly watched (and you will know if this is the case) you watch them, or suffer the consequences. One of mine is ok, the other one requires constant surveillance.

  • WhiteEagle2

    And that's why the museum should have insurance. If you didn't want it to break, keep it in a storage facility underground somewhere.

  • The_Wretched

    5 year olds are expected in museums. They were negligent in the display.

  • TheQiwiMan

    5 years old should be old enough to know not to do that.

    Bad parenting.

  • Jenness

    Yeah they should. Five is not 3. Five year olds are already in school and no touching is a big deal by then. Though, I think $132k is excessive and any place that allows events where copious amounts of alcohol are served should protect their investments better - or - should lay liability on the event hosts for having event insurance and for informing guests of the rules.

  • toba_fett

    Maybe he thought he'd be able to get milk from those boobies, just like mommies.

  • Mark

    Mom: I thought it might be $800, but 132,000?

    Me: Its a museum, not Walmart. Museums are for showcasing rare and expensive items.

    Watch your young children.

  • Octo

    How do you value art anyway...yea i'm sure the artist put a lot of work into it..but the material is worth like 25 bucks. A mediocre chicken net statue shouldn't be $132k.

  • FearlessFarris

    It's a museum not a frame shop.

  • Gilbert

    2 Questions:

    1. Doesn't the museum have insurance?
    2. Why the hell did twitlett take little Johnny to the museum and not bother to supervise him?

    That last question is why the parents SHOULD have to pay...

  • bigalosu

    The insurance company reviewed video and decided not to pay. Most policies will not pay for something like this. For example, if a person stole a car and crashed into your living room, the responsibility would be put on the person and not your insurance company. If the person escapes, it's your fault.
    Insurance covers things that can't be prevented. This could have easily been prevented if those kids had reliable parents, which they obviously do not.

  • MWinter

    The insurance company will pay but then will sue the mom. Insurance companies aren't charities. If you caused something they had to pay for, they sue you.

  • bigalosu


  • Bling Nye

    Much ado about nothing...

    "All the city did was file an insurance claim," Overland Park communications manager Sean Reilly told CNET in an email. "We are treating this like any other piece of publicly financed city property when it is damaged. For instance, if a street light, traffic signal, police or fire vehicle (is damaged), we work through our insurance carrier who contacts the other party's insurance carrier to seek payment.

    "We are NOT seeking payment from the family," Reilly said. "Our carrier is simply wanting to contact their insurance provider. If we do not seek payment from their carrier, taxpayers' money will be used to compensate the artist." -

    But $132,000? C'mon...

  • FearlessFarris

    The artist must have been allowed to set his/her own price on that.

  • Bling Nye

    Of course they did. :)

  • GeneralDisorder

    That's a relief. I don't believe anyone has ever been charged for accidental damages to artwork at museums before. So if so, that'd be a first.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Previous Post
Next Post