Wednesday, July 27, 2011

A Backwards Look at Liability

I've been told on several occasions to be careful how I promote barefoot activity. The concerned persons say I might end up liable if people end up hurting themselves. This is a completely backwards and thoroughly confusing concept to me.

How is it that our society's collective thinking has gotten so twisted that we now believe that I could be liable if people use their feet as nature intended and that shoe companies are free from liability for weakness, stiffness, skin conditions and other ailments that are caused or exacerbated by their products? Do you see how topsy turvy that thinking is?

I wonder how many billions of dollars have been spent in the U.S. in the last half century to pay for the various treatments of ailments caused - or at least exacerbated - by shoes including...


  • Arthritis
  • Plantar fasciitis
  • Fallen arches
  • Bunions
  • Hammertoes
  • Morton's Neuroma
  • Corns
  • Callouses
  • Dry/cracked skin
  • Toenail fungus
  • Athlete's foot
  • Hangnails
  • Ingrown toenails
  • Stress fractures
  • Fractures
  • Sprains
  • And more!

I assert that a great number of these ailments would have never occurred if people had gone barefoot more. Would injuries have happened to barefoot persons? Sure, but I'd bet it'd be far fewer than many would like to believe and that the overall costs of treating such problems would have been less.

If I would be liable for someone who goes barefoot getting injured, why aren't the shoe manufacturers liable for all the ailments listed above that their products may have caused for their customers?

It would be interesting to see how a class-action lawsuit against shoe companies would play out. Would it be thrown out by a judge? Would the plaintiffs successfully plead their case that shoe companies sold their products knowing full well that they could cause these ailments in customers without warning them of such dangers? Would the defense actually try to convince the court that shoes don't cause any of these ailments or that shoe wearers should have known the risks involved?

This feels a lot like the lawsuits that were successfully brought against the cigarette industry years ago. These huge companies spent loads of money in reparations after they'd been found guilty of duping and damaging the American public to make a buck. Warning labels were required on EVERY pack of cigarettes thereafter. The shoes available for sale and use today are just as bad for the feet as cigarettes are for the lungs, but many people don't know it.

Daniel Howell, PhD, author of The Barefoot Book and a professor of biology, believes that sellers of high heeled shoes should put warning labels on them. I agree. How many women would stop wearing heels if they knew that 20,000 women go to the hospital each year due to heel-related injuries? How many women would stop wearing heels if they knew they were far more likely to develop bunions, hammertoes, Morton's Neuroma, corns and other ailments because of them? Are the high heel manufacturers telling their customers this vital information? NO, but they should be.

If someone wants to sell us footwear or cigarettes, we should go into the purchase knowing what risks are ahead of us. Most importantly, if we want to opt out of using such products, we have every right do so and should not be forced by anyone to use products that will likely cause us some harm.

Worth noting is that no one had to convince anyone else that breathing without smoke in your lungs is a good, natural thing. That said, why does society put the burden of proof on barefooters that going barefoot is good, natural and acceptable behavior? As I've stated on this blog before, barefoot is the baseline. It is the natural condition for our feet, just as breathing non-smoky air is for our lungs. Sure, there are risks involved, but we understand that as part of our human nature. That said, I can't tell you how many barefooters have been told to put on shoes for their "safety."

Imagine if a restaurant manager changed the way you dine for your "safety.":
"Good evening, sir. I see you ordered the steak. Because of that I'm going to have to ask you to wear these protective gloves while you use your steak knife to cut the food. We don't want you cutting yourself. Alisha here will also be making sure that you've chewed each bite thoroughly and that you're not speaking before you swallow each bite. We don't want you choking, after all. Just looking out for your safety!"
When we use a steak knife with bare hands, we know we must be careful lest we get cut. When we eat steak we know we must be careful not to choke. Likewise, when we go barefoot we understand we must be careful not to step on something dangerous or stub our toes. We don't need someone coddling us and protecting us from things we already know and understand! What we DO need is more public education on the harm that shoes are actually doing to our feet.

What do you think? Should shoe manufacturers be held liable for selling the public on products that exacerbate foot ailments? Should shoes come with warning labels? Please let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

11 comments:

  1. Reminds me of the time when I was asked to put on shoes as I was running barefoot on an City run indoor track. They said I could sue them if I stepped on something whilst barefoot. I then asked if I could sue them if I put on shoes and then developed foot problems. I then cited that when I wore athletic shoes I was injured within 3 months of wearing them, yet 6 months after going barefoot/minimalist I was running half marathons. No comment, but still I am not allowed to run barefoot there - because they own the building they can make whatever rules they want and kick you out if you don't follow them, regardless of the evidence you produce. :/

    ReplyDelete
  2. A restaurant manager once asked me to put on shoes for "liability reasons." The lady standing next to me in 4" stiletto heels was free to walk to her table without issue. What if she twisted her ankle tripping over a bump in the carpet? Seems a higher liability issue than walking barefoot. The manager did offer to seat me outside if I remained barefoot. I'm not sure how walking barefoot in their outdoor seating section reduced any liability issues while walking indoors would be a problem. Go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Fascinating to view the barefoot-in-public debate in this way.
    Only yesterday I was having a similar conversation with a colleague.
    Add to the list of ailments a varety of musculo-skeletal conditions that can be linked to running shod, incl lower leg, knee, hip and lower back.
    I think a lot of people/companies are thinking, and hoping, this resurgence in barefooting is nothing more than a short-lived fad.
    Very interested to follow how the debate plays out over the coming months and years.
    Great article.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great article for sure. I have never yet experienced a situation when someone would refuse to put me in somewhere barefoot. I think this is because this barefoot lifestyle is yet very uncommon here in Latvia, no restaurant owner has yet gathered experience with barefooters :) And yes, I agree with you, of course, that the warning signs are a total MUST on shoe boxes, just as they are on cigarettes..!

    ReplyDelete
  5. The cigarette comparison is apt in many ways. Smoking was once highly fashionable, considered youthful, and associated with all kinds of unsupported health claims. It took decades before things began to change. Of course, the provable link between lung cancer and smoking finally did it.

    The health problems associated with shoes are less dire. But clear enough.

    As for liability, I'm quite sure that insurance will cover accidents that occur to customers while shopping or dining regardless of what they are wearing or not wearing. As a self-employed photographer, I carry liability insurance, and as far as I can tell there's nothing in the policy about bare feet.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Shoes should absolutely come with warning labels! I have mentioned this in my blog as well. Cigarette companies are being forced to have more and more graphic packages, I think shoes should come with the same thing, a big picture of a high heel mutilated foot on it. That will deter at least a few.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey Katie,
    Those "rules" are really not about liability; at least they did not originate that way. Before the mid 1980s many of us worked out in gyms barefoot, including lifting heavy weights. Perfectly normal in the 1970s. But the "image" of gyms during the 1980s began to be redefined as an "upscale" squeaky-clean place to to meet singles and socialize. With that came dress codes, where it was expected you wear the latest designer workout clothes and fancy running shoes. Even if those were not actual written rules, the social pressure to conform was there, and eventually the shoe rule got written in as a "liability" reason. And young people who were not around during the 1970s, including gym owners, have no idea of the history of this, and are just copying what they see in our current culture.
    We all seem to forget cultural practices only 2 to 5 years after they end, and do not pass the information on to younger generations, so they often do not even know certain cultural and social behaviors even existed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If you do a Google image search for "bound feet" you can see the terrible damage done by foot binding practices in China, yet even that practice was difficult to get rid of. I think we are a long way from bare feet being socially acceptable. Some would put bare-foot proponents in the same category as nudists (though admittedly clothes seem less damaging than shoes). My wife does not shave (legs or armpits). . . it's natural, fine with me, but definitely not socially acceptable. You probably get similar looks for your feet all the time!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Useful information ..I am very happy to read this article..thanks for giving us this useful information. Fantastic walk - through. I appreciate this post.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Very interesting, and you are so right. I'm new to barefooting. I have had deformed tendons since I was a child, which causes constant inflammation and infection to the lining of my bone. And my tendons are stretched the wrong way, which causes them to be tighter. Because of this, I've made myself more prone to injuries whilst barefoot when I start forgetting how to walk correctly ... or sometimes just because I my foot meeting hard pavement jarred my foot too much for my already inflamed ankles to handle. But I have gone on two hikes in the last week, one on a 3/4 mile dirt trail with a 200' incline up to Treasure Falls in Colorado and the other on the 1/2 mile, incredibly rocky hike to Zapata Falls, which requires the hiker to hike through a river to get to the cave where the falls is located. I could feel as my ankle would begin to get irritated or twist and could quickly correct myself before causing an injury that would require my crutches. Now I just wish concrete, roadbase, etc, would be outlawed.

    ReplyDelete
  11. http://www.jeremyscottwingsusoutlet.com Jeremy Scott Adidas

    http://www.mbtstores4you.com mbt shoes

    http://www.mbtstores4you.com mbt outlet

    http://www.hotjeremyscottwingsadidas.com

    http://www.burberrysaleweb.net burberry outlet

    Thank you for your artice, it is wonderful. Have a good day.

    ReplyDelete

Related from LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails