Comments on Barefoot and Grounded .com: A Backwards Look at Liability

If you do a Google image search for "bound fe...

2011-08-16T12:20:35.424-05:00

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!

Hey Katie, Those "rules" are really no...

2011-08-09T10:01:26.831-05:00

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.

Shoes should absolutely come with warning labels! ...

2011-08-07T12:31:38.538-05:00

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.

The cigarette comparison is apt in many ways. Smok...

2011-07-28T11:28:24.108-05:00

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.

Great article for sure. I have never yet experienc...

2011-07-28T06:24:45.293-05:00

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..!

Fascinating to view the barefoot-in-public debate ...

2011-07-27T22:03:02.065-05:00

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.

A restaurant manager once asked me to put on shoes...

2011-07-27T21:27:02.508-05:00

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.

Reminds me of the time when I was asked to put on ...

2011-07-27T20:38:45.482-05:00

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. :/