"Liability law makes it clear that if I do not have shoes on, then I'm 100% liable for myself. If I put shoes on because you told me I had to, then you become 100% liable for anything that happens to me. So, there's no reason for requiring people to wear shoes."
I dont dispute that. As a business owner it is still a liability issue either way because there are people that sue regardless and work the system. The insurance companies dont like expensive legal fights do settle and the scumbags play the system to get money to pay their bills, buy their drugs or whatever. So the insurance companies come up with rules to try and prevent the few scumbags from having an opening. Another instance of 5he lowest common denominator society we live in where a few screw things up for everyone else.
We are actually dealing with one of these scumbags right now.
The trouble is that if they insist that someone wear shoes, then they become 100% liable -- even for stuff they would not normally be liable. Insisting that a customer wear shoes is not in their best interest. They are essentially guaranteed to lose the lawsuit. On the other hand, if they don't say anything about a customer's footwear -- or lack thereof -- they have a substantially better change of winning. By not wearing shoes, the customer has accepted 100% of the liability.
Yes, but the insurance companies play the statistics game and reasonable expectations. Insurance companies are major employers of statisticians. They look at what is the probability that someone barefoot will cut their feet vs, someone with shoes on and is it a reasonable expectation that it is safer to require shoes.
The trouble is that if they insist that someone wear shoes, then they become 100% liable -- even for stuff they would not normally be liable. Insisting that a customer wear shoes is not in their best interest. They are essentially guaranteed to lose the lawsuit. On the other hand, if they don't say anything about a customer's footwear -- or lack thereof -- they have a substantially better change of winning. By not wearing shoes, the customer has accepted 100% of the liability.Yes, but the insurance companies play the statistics game and reasonable expectations. Insurance companies are major employers of statisticians. They look at what is the probability that someone barefoot will cut their feet vs, someone with shoes on and is it a reasonable expectation that it is safer to require shoes.
I worked as a casualty actuary for 30 years. I never got to that level of detail, or know of anyone who did.
For now, I'm only concerned about my backyard, my neighbors, my city and my county. I have it on very good authority that not only will I not get in trouble for being nude in my own backyard but I've done so much to provide us privacy, our neighbors would be considered voyeurs and peeping Toms for going to great lengths to see us naked back there. That person giving me this info is well aware of the laws and ordinances where I live. Could be why I've never been given any grief, if/when we've been seen.
The recent rulings are much more draconian than previously. They are now aligning with the cops who say drones, cameras, high buildings and weird sight lines are valid reasons to charge a private citizen with indecent exposure or some other nonsense like this. It's always a good idea to overdo the privacy protection rather than underdo it, but it shouldn't be this way at all, as in Canada and the UK, the citizen has the right to their home as they see fit.
One of the other nice things to do is chat with your neighbors and ask if there are issues or anything you can do to help them avoid any issues with your private life. I hope you continue to get no issues, it sucks (like the folx who were spied by a couple of ladies trespassing on their private property through a window and were charged by the trespassers successfully.
Much better to actually check the law. What most people believe to be true about the law, often is not true.
I was told just yesterday that the law required me to have shoes on in a convenience store -- the manager was adamant about it. I asked, "Have you ever seen this law? The truth is, there are no laws, nor have there ever been, in the US that required customers to wear shoes."
"Well, the owner wouldn't allow you in here without shoes."
"Liability law makes it clear that if I do not have shoes on, then I'm 100% liable for myself. If I put shoes on because you told me I had to, then you become 100% liable for anything that happens to me. So, there's no reason for requiring people to wear shoes."
My point is, what people think the laws say, often is true and in not a good standard at all. Know the law. Know your rights.
There are state, civic and county laws and bylaws, as well as municipal ordinances to look into, it can be a bit of a process.
For now, I'm only concerned about my backyard, my neighbors, my city and my county. I have it on very good authority that not only will I not get in trouble for being nude in my own backyard but I've done so much to provide us privacy, our neighbors would be considered voyeurs and peeping Toms for going to great lengths to see us naked back there. That person giving me this info is well aware of the laws and ordinances where I live. Could be why I've never been given any grief, if/when we've been seen.The recent rulings are much more draconian than previously. They are now aligning with the cops who say drones, cameras, high buildings and weird sight lines are valid reasons to charge a private citizen with indecent exposure or some other nonsense like this. It's always a good idea to overdo the privacy protection rather than underdo it, but it shouldn't be this way at all, as in Canada and the UK, the citizen has the right to their home as they see fit.One of the other nice things to do is chat with your neighbors and ask if there are issues or anything you can do to help them avoid any issues with your private life. I hope you continue to get no issues, it sucks (like the folx who were spied by a couple of ladies trespassing on their private property through a window and were charged by the trespassers successfully.
It is sad that a so called developed "free" country has laws where the peeping toms have more right than the people they are spying on as to me this is becoming a police state which you expect from countries like China and not the USA.
"It is important to understand what public indecency is and how it
can apply to someone at home when naked in an apartment or unit
because there is no right to privacy in these situations if the shades are drawn.
If the person is aware of these circumstances and someone
sees him or her, it could lead to local law enforcement
explaining the situation before any type of arrest or charges occur."
What is Indecent Exposure?
www.hg.org/legal-articles/indecent-exposure-can-i-be-charged-if-i-am-naked-in-my-own-home-52610
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!