Assaulting Personal Liberty in San Francisco

[citizenzen]

Are you serious?

Broken glass, general spills, easier to slip, and this isn't even getting to places that generally stock dangerous goods like a hardware store.

Maybe they should require steel-toed workbooks and hardhats.

 

[sarge]

Here is the point where you and I must agree to disagree

It isn't me you are disagreeing with. It is possible to cause psychological harm to someone by running afoul of deeply held beliefs, even if the beliefs themselves are not logical.

If you believed that water was poisonous, and I mixed some into your vodka, would you die?

I think you're mistaking harm and offense,

No - I know the difference between harm and offense, but I believe you are conflating physical harm and psychological harm.

An adolescent of 14 that is raped may well be "harmed", even in the absence of actual physical damage. Similarly, a child raised to view nudity as undesirable and to be avoided might be harmed by an unexpected and unwelcome display of public nudity - even though there is no logical basis for holding the belief that nudity is undesirable.

and I believe you and I both have the right to choose our reaction to what we see and experience.

We do not choose many of our reactions to what we experience. Many of our reactions are automatic - although an adult should certainly be able to control a reaction to a greater extent than a child. An adult should also be able to chose not to be offended, but I am not attepting to equate "offense" and "harm".

Just because someone chooses, based on their culture, to react as if harmed when they see nudity does not mean harm occurred, just that that person is emoting histrionics, in hopes of making the people around them conform with their personal cultural expectations.

Conversly, someone that is harmed does not necessarily choose to be so, and nor are they necessarily being hysterical by reacting with shock to something they have learned is supposed to shock them.

 

[sadhatter]

Maybe they should require steel-toed workbooks and hardhats.

Ever notice when they do construction they fence off the in store areas? This is because if you could go there there would be a requirement for steel toed shoes and hardhats.

Any other snipes that are going to backfire on you?

 

[citizenzen]

Any other snipes that are going to backfire on you?

My "snipe" backfired over your nonsensical reply? Kewl.

Here. I'll try a serious angle.

If the footwear requirement is safety-based, it seems pretty arbitrary to me. I wear canvas slip-ons. A can of tomato sauce, falling from the top shelf, will do nearly as much damage to my toes than if I had worn nothing. People wearing sandals or open-toed shoes are not afforded any protection from falling products.

Women wearing stiletto or other high heels would be considered "safe" even though their footwear would likely make them more prone to falling if they encountered a slippery surface than if they had been barefoot.

Now, this rule may be enforced for insurance purposes. Perhaps it is a requirement in a retail store's liability policy. But I have not seen any compelling reason to see this restriction as reasonable. It appears to me to be little more than a social convention, along the lines of don't swim after eating for one hour or you'll get cramps.

If anybody can bring forth evidence to support the notion that the lack of footwear is a significant safety hazard in retail stores, I'd be happy to look at it.

Until then, I'm inclined to believe we're simply dealing with an arbitrary social rule.

 

[sadhatter]

My "snipe" backfired over your nonsensical reply? Kewl.

Here. I'll try a serious angle.

If the footwear requirement is safety-based, it seems pretty arbitrary to me. I wear canvas slip-ons. A can of tomato sauce, falling from the top shelf, will do nearly as much damage to my toes than if I had worn nothing. People wearing sandals or open-toed shoes are not afforded any protection from falling products.

Women wearing stiletto or other high heels would be considered "safe" even though their footwear would likely make them more prone to falling if they encountered a slippery surface than if they had been barefoot.

Now, this rule may be enforced for insurance purposes. Perhaps it is a requirement in a retail store's liability policy. But I have not seen any compelling reason to see this restriction as reasonable. It appears to me to be little more than a social convention, along the lines of don't swim after eating for one hour or you'll get cramps.

If anybody can bring forth evidence to support the notion that the lack of footwear is a significant safety hazard in retail stores, I'd be happy to look at it.

Until then, I'm inclined to believe we're simply dealing with an arbitrary social rule.

Ahem, most hardware stores do have a policy of no open toed shoes, due to the increased risk of heavy objects falling. In a regular store, the enforceability, combined with the chances of it happening ( broken glass, misplaced box cutter blades, etc are much more common.) , make this not something that is generally requested.

Also when it comes to falling objects, anything on the foot provides much more protection against impact and draw cuts, as well as the kind of crushing wounds one would get from a falling can.

Now combine this with the fact that most things that are dangerous in a common store, ( walmart for example.) are already going to be on the floor. I am sure you can see why your sandal analogy fails. The bulk of the danger comes from things on the floor, your sandals have a sole, said things are going to be puncture , draw cuts or impact cuts , and mitigated or stopped by this.

Devils advocate is just not working out for you brother.

 

[citizenzen]

Devils advocate is just not working out for you brother.

Who's sniping now?

Is it not possible to exchange ideas without engaging in grade school jibes?

Civil discussion is just not working for you brother.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Fun discussion. Plenty of rebuttals. So far I've seen, in no particular order;

Won't someone please think of the children

offense equals harm

nudity is offensive because it's wrong, and wrong because it's offensive.

right to be free of offense trumps right to freedom of expression

contradicting my beliefs equals harming me, even if my beliefs are wrong

giving offense by being nude comparable to giving offense by raping a child

nudity is low class (homeless perv)

nudity is unhealthy (stinky too)

nudity is wrong even in places that don't specifically say so, because 'everyone knows that, its part of our culture' and 'common sense'.


I hope I don't have to point out to thinking beings how weak these arguments are. Apparently I live in a very different world than some of you do. I think I like mine better. It has more naked people, for one.

 

[Babbylonian]

I hope I don't have to point out to thinking beings how weak these arguments are. Apparently I live in a very different world than some of you do. I think I like mine better. It has more naked people, for one.

I don't think the culture argument is particularly weak. While I agree that people should be able to wander the streets as nude as they want to be, culture changes slowly, especially with regard to aspects of culture ingrained in every participant's life for as many as hundreds of generations. While that argument can be applied to a lot of things, there are few cultural biases (apart from food and shelter) that are as ingrained in humans as the need/desire/requirement for clothing.

Given that most people don't consider being required to wear clothing a burden, it'll take a long while for the culture to adjust. In the meantime, it's probably better to address other, more pressing issues along the way.

 

[Hokulele]

Now, this rule may be enforced for insurance purposes. Perhaps it is a requirement in a retail store's liability policy. But I have not seen any compelling reason to see this restriction as reasonable.

It is part of their liability policy, which on its own make the rule reasonable. Even if it weren't, the fact that it doesn't prevent all foot-related accidents does not make it unreasonable on its own terms.

It is similar to how having safety-belt regulations for cars isn't unreasonable since it is no guarantee passengers won't be injured or killed.

 

[sarge]

Fun discussion. Plenty of rebuttals. So far I've seen, in no particular order;

Won't someone please think of the children

offense equals harm
nudity is offensive because it's wrong, and wrong because it's offensive.

right to be free of offense trumps right to freedom of expression

contradicting my beliefs equals harming me, even if my beliefs are wrong
giving offense by being nude comparable to giving offense by raping a child
nudity is low class (homeless perv)

nudity is unhealthy (stinky too)

nudity is wrong even in places that don't specifically say so, because 'everyone knows that, its part of our culture' and 'common sense'.


I hope I don't have to point out to thinking beings how weak these arguments are. Apparently I live in a very different world than some of you do. I think I like mine better. It has more naked people, for one.

I would have hoped that I would not have to point out that you have intentionaly misstated some of these positions. Dishonest.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

I would have hoped that I would not have to point out that you have intentionaly misstated some of these positions. Dishonest.

It is possible to cause harm by violating beliefs that are not grounded in logic.

It is possible to cause psychological harm to someone by running afoul of deeply held beliefs, even if the beliefs themselves are not logical.

An adolescent of 14 that is raped may well be "harmed", even in the absence of actual physical damage. Similarly, a child raised to view nudity as undesirable and to be avoided might be harmed by an unexpected and unwelcome display of public nudity - even though there is no logical basis for holding the belief that nudity is undesirable.

I thought I was just taking you at your words. Did you or did you not say the things I've quoted above, and if they don't mean what they say, exactly what DO they mean?

 

[Craig4]

Oakland cops would probably be ecstatic if people went around naked. It is harder (but not impossible) to conceal weapons that way.

That's a point.

 

[Robrob]

What's the relevance of the hypothetical "perv" being homeless?

No particular need. The issue remains the same if it were the parish Priest.

 

[Aridas]

Hard ons in the human male can be caused by many things outside of sexual arousal, including simple chilly weather. Cold pools have many a third leg proudly standing forth from swimwear.

Indeed. Which is a fair portion of the reason why I wouldn't care. I fully admit to a completely utilitarian view on the necessity of clothing, either way, much as I understand that such isn't shared by most in my area.

I also think that it's a shame when a person's first statement about nudist colonies is "but there's a lot of ugly people in those places!" *facepalm*

 

[citizenzen]

It is part of their liability policy, which on its own make the rule reasonable. Even if it weren't, the fact that it doesn't prevent all foot-related accidents does not make it unreasonable on its own terms.

A little digging into the issue indicates to me that I was right all along; bare foot bans are merely an arbitrary social rule.

Here's a few things that I found ...

A Case for Bare Feet

2.4. The “Liability” Argument

Once the law and health department myths are shown to be false, the next argument used against barefooters is the infamous “broken glass” argument that is: “You might cut yourself and sue us.” From personal experience, we know this fear to be unfounded. Lucas, stated: Yes, broken glass exists, but it is not “all over the place” even on city streets. Unless itʼs a recent breakage, it gets kicked/swept into cracks, against walls, or right against curbs and isnʼt strewn about. For the little glass that does remain, again, just watch where youʼre going! But, for the seasoned barefooter with tough, thick soles, most broken glass is not a problem even if you step directly on it. Dr. Steven E. Robbins, corroborates Lucasʼs last sentence:

Another aspect of barefoot safety is risk of puncture wounds. A report has shown that when the plantar surface is subjected to localized load via sharp deforming objects, it deforms so as to contain the object in the void created by the deforming object, thus resisting perforation. Whereas the risk of plantar surface puncture wounds must be greater when barefoot if compared with wearing shoes, this skin defense makes the sole of the foot reasonably resistant to penetration.​

Even if a barefooter did get a piece of glass in a sole, s/he would most likely not sue the business owner. We base this on correspondence with many barefooters. Barefooters highly prize the freedom to go barefoot and would not do anything to jeopardize that freedom. Additionally, liability case law makes a successful lawsuit extremely unlikely. In order to successfully sue a business owner for any injury, four elements must be proven: a duty of care to the customer, a breach of that duty (negligence), a causal link between the breach and harm, and actual harm or damage.

Regarding duty of care: In general, a business owner is not the insurer of a customerʼs safety. The owner must only guard against unreasonable risks about which the customer would not be otherwise aware, or a risk that the customer could not appreciate. In addition, under the doctrine of “primary assumption of the risk,” no duty of care is owed as to risks inherent in a given activity.

It is pretty clear that a business owner has no special duty of care to a barefooter. It is the barefooter who has the superior knowledge over the business owner, and the barefoot customer is fully expected to appreciate any inherent risk in going barefoot. In fact, business owners who post signs requiring footwear in their stores for “liability reasons” might be opening themselves up for “duty of care” lawsuits. These signs could be interpreted as the business owner proclaiming a duty of care in assuring the safety of a customerʼs footwear (by deeming one type of footwear unsafe and not allowed, the business owner has taken under his or her wing the whole range of possibly unsafe footwear). If a customer on high heels or platform shoes were to severely sprain their ankle because of their shoes, the business owner might be liable, since he or she has proclaimed by his or her sign a “duty of care” interest in customersʼ footwear.

There is an additional doctrine that applies: comparative (or, in some states, even the more severe contributory) negligence. If, somehow, a lawsuit made it past the “duty of care” barrier (already unlikely), a jury is required to weigh the relative negligence of the business owner and the barefooter. Any award would then be reduced by the amount of negligence attributed to the barefooter, and in many states, if the barefooter is found to be more than 50% negligent, no award is allowed. Even if a barefooter were to step on some broken glass, any rational jury would think: “What did you expect? You were barefoot!” No award would be made.

Another version of the “liability” argument is when a business further claims that it can not admit bare feet because their insurance company forbids it in their policy. The authors are unaware of any insurance policy that forbids bare feet or of the existence of any data showing that bare feet are a statistically-significant risk that would motivate actuaries to add such a restriction to policies. An insurance agent questioned about this said that there are no such restrictions in liability insurance policies. Given that, we believe that the claim of insurance policies forbidding bare feet is just like the claim that health departments forbid bare feet: bogus. We further believe that such claims are intentionally made for reasons similar if not identical to those made about health department regulations.

Even though bare feet do not pose any real liability risk, if a business owner wishes to post a sign, we think a much more reasonable sign could read: Bare Feet at own risk. Business such as auto-repair shops have signs that read “Not responsible for fire or theft,” and car- washes have “Not responsible for items left in car, damage, or antennas.” Since there are many such businesses still in existence, implying that they havenʼt been sued into bankruptcy, such signs are apparantly sufficient to ward off lawsuits. Therefore, a “Bare Feet at own risk” sign should also be sufficient while still allowing people to go barefoot if they choose to do so.​

Barefoot Litigant [from the comments below the main article]

I find it frightening how many readers have jumped on the Library’s band wagon, ‘knowing’ that a barefoot person first will be injured, then will sue, and will win. Contributory negligence laws and case law show otherwise. The Library has actually opened itself up for lawsuits by anyone wearing shoes. By requiring shoes, the Library has assumed responsibility for protecting patrons from injury. By wearing shoes, any type of shoes, patrons are now “safe”. Now if someone wears thin soled shoes and is still injured by a tack, they have every reason to sue. The Library told them they would be safe from harm and the Library failed to protect them.

That same Library encourages children to sit on their hazardous floors for reading sessions and does not discourage children from crawling on their bare hands and knees on those same hazardous floors. The Library isn’t really trying to protect anyone. The Library was trying to justify a dress code created by an administrator who likes to flaunt his authority. When backed into the corner by the court, the Library jumped on the first excuse they thought would work. Unfortunately for our personal freedoms, it did work. The court simply accepted the argument without really considering matters of law, or even common sense.

•••

The library has so far prevailed on two points: First, that their facility presents dangers to barefooted patrons; second, that allowing barefooted patrons exposes the library to lawsuits.

We can easily dispose of the first point in two ways. Most importantly, the dangers they cite are not unique to barefooted patrons — the boy who hurt his ARM on a staple, for instance. Since all patrons are endangered, they have no basis to exclude one group – and a small group, at that – from the facility. The second nail in this coffin is the fact that the dangers aren’t really that dangerous: Human waste and body fluids certainly rate high on the “Eeww!” scale, but are not particularly hazardous to anything other than the appetite. (Research the life cycle of HIV and hookworm before you argue.) Sharp objects should be removed immediately in any case (remember that boy’s arm) and so again they provide no basis for excluding barefooters. Reading the court documents reveals that the library makes unsupported assertions of dangers, and the court has accepted these assertions on their face.

The library’s second argument deals with avoiding lawsuits. Here are a few questions for consideration:
- How many lawsuits are filed against the library annually?
- How many of those involve barefoot patrons?
- How would the barefootedness of an injured patron increase the library’s liability in a lawsuit?

It can be argued that the library’s shoes-required policy has prevented no lawsuits at all. It can be trivially shown that the policy has _caused_ at least one lawsuit.

And if you role-play a hypothetical injury lawsuit, you’ll see that a barefoot patron actually reduces the library’s liability, because the patron’s willful exposure to the “dangers” gives them shared responsibility. Conversely (as pointed out in a previous comment) by requiring footwear the library actually takes upon itself the liability for injuries resulting from their footwear policy. Perhaps an untied shoelace gets tangled in the wheel of a passing book cart; the patron is tripped up and could argue they would not have been wearing shoes at all except for the library’s rules.​

Business Owners and Barefoot Insurance

Virtually every business has liability insurance. As a business owner, I know that it really makes sense to have liability insurance, although I’ve never had to use it. And on top of that, lenders and landlords generally require it. This requirement is written into the documents for loans, mortgages, lines of credit, and leases. They protect the lender as well as the borrower, the landlord as well as the tenant.

This being the case, if/when a business is sued the matter is handled by their insurance company. The insurance company decides whether or not to simply pay (settle) a claim or to defend against it in court. And if they decide to go to court, they provide the lawyers and legal support staff to develop the defense and argue the case. If they choose to settle the case or lose in court, the insurer is the one who actually has to fork over the money, up to the policy limit. Liability policies, even for small businesses, typically provide coverage of at least a couple of million dollars, if not more, which would be way more than enough to cover any type of minor accident claim.

Yes, the business owner and any witness employees could be called upon to testify, or more likely give depositions, and this would take a little bit of their time. But the major costs of legal defense and actually paying the injured party, if it comes to that, are born by the insurance company. I guess it’s possible that a large settlement or a number of claims over a short time period could result in the business’s premium being increased, but that potential cost is uncertain and relatively small.

So any business owner or manager that suggests or implies that they would face huge legal expenses and possibly a huge settlement cost if a customer is injured and sues are probably almost always either mistaken or not being truthful.

In my experience with general business insurance, how claims affect rates really varies from one situation to another and from one insurance company to another. Fortunately I’ve never had a liability insurance claim. My understanding, based on discussions with insurance agents, is that what gets the most scrutiny is “loss history.” Having a number of claims, especially over a short time period, raises red flags and can make it difficult and/or more expensive to purchase insurance. The isolated random incidents that occur once in a while are pretty much factored into insurance rates using actuarial statistics. A pattern of several similar incidents, especially if it appears that they could have been prevented if the management of the business had been more diligent about safety considerations, would probably cause problems.

The insurance industry collects and analyzes huge amounts of data on every sort of factor that may impact the probability of incurring a loss. It’s an industry based on quantifying risk. If the insurance industry were able to statistically determine that allowing barefoot customers in a store or restaurant would increase the probability of losses (claims) they would offer discounted rates for businesses with anti-barefoot policies or require such policies as a prerequisite for providing insurance coverage. If the insurance industry does not provide such discounts or requirements, you can be sure that there is no evidence to form a factual basis for anyone’s concerns that barefoot customers increase the risk of claims.​

 

[Skeptical Greg]

" Arbitrary social rule ", doesn't quite cut it either..

A business owners perception that bare feet might expose them to more liability, is just as valid as your Bloggers opinion...


Your source doesn't appear to be unbiased.. To the contrary , they seem to be some sort of bare foot activist ..

 

[citizenzen]

Your source doesn't appear to be unbiased.. To the contrary , they seem to be some sort of bare foot activist ..

They are.

Just as many people advocating for civil rights in the 1960s were black.

Can you prove their points wrong? Can you find a liability policy that stipulates bare feet are prohibited? Can you counter their opinions that people walking with bare feet would not be likely awarded much (if anything) for their injuries because of the fact they willing walked around in bare feet?

Please feel free to rebut those points.

I found a number of personal injury lawyer sites that said the primary cause of lawsuits in grocery stores was due to slip and falls ... with women over 60 being the most likely victim.

Have You Had A Slip And Fall In A Grocery Store?

Many people associate slip and fall accidents with icy sidewalks or rickety railings - not with retail stores such as supermarkets. However, the National Floor Safety Institute (NFSI) recently released a shocking study: grocery stores, supermarkets, and food marts, have over $450 million in legal expenses and court settlements each year due to slip and fall incidents and premises liability cases.

The NFSI study also found that those most likely to become injured in a slip and fall accident in a grocery store are women over 60. The most common location for these falls is in the entry way to stores, where wet spots collect and where the pedestrian traffic is high. ​

Where's the sign for that?

No women over 60 without personal attendant!

 

[rwguinn]

Ever been in a crowded elevator with a small child? Or any other crowded place?
Do you really want folks sticking their genitals or butt in a small child's face?
Or their "naughty bits" in close proximity to yours?
There are reasons for the conventions and laws against public nudity.

 

[Aridas]

Ever been in a crowded elevator with a small child? Or any other crowded place?
Do you really want folks sticking their genitals or butt in a small child's face?
Or their "naughty bits" in close proximity to yours?
There are reasons for the conventions and laws against public nudity.

Strangely enough, this, again, doesn't cause me to feel the emotional reaction that it's obviously designed to produce, given such already prejudiced language as "naughty bits." That said, if the child is used to nudity, the nudity itself is highly unlikely to matter. Other matters, such as farting, sure. A person going out of their way to grope another, sure. Those are very separate matters, though.

 

[rwguinn]

Strangely enough, this, again, doesn't cause me to feel the emotional reaction that it's obviously designed to produce, given such already prejudiced language as "naughty bits." That said, if the child is used to nudity, the nudity itself is highly unlikely to matter. Other matters, such as farting, sure. A person going out of their way to grope another, sure. Those are very separate matters, though.

And your cherry-pick is disgusting, too.
being blase' about folks putting their pubes in a child's face is pretty sick...