This topic has been discussed multiple times on this forum....

http://www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/...fear_Yuppie_911

Tired from a tough hike? Rescuers fear Yuppie 911
Published - Oct 25 2009 07:54PM EDT
By TRACIE CONE - Associated Press Writer

[...]
Technology has made calling for help instantaneous even in the most remote places. Because would-be adventurers can send GPS coordinates to rescuers with the touch of a button, some are exploring terrain they do not have the experience, knowledge or endurance to tackle.

Rescue officials are deciding whether to start keeping statistics on the problem, but the incidents have become so frequent that the head of California's Search and Rescue operation has a name for the devices: Yuppie 911.
[...]

An awful lot of people died too, and still do, because they were in serious trouble and could not call for help.
Even with a beacon people still die because the rescue team can't be sent to where they are soon enough.

It is a really hard call. The way the media reports these events does not help either. Successful rescues which were justified might only get a few lines of press. Tragic deaths and bonehead stupidity which waste resources get over reported.
It would be nice to know how many idiot calls there are in relation to serious ones.
If it is fewer than 1% is it really a concern?
What if it is less than 5%?
There is the question there of how many false alarms are acceptable when balanced against the real alarms and against how many would die if the service was not available.

Maybe the idea of keeping track of the rescue calls and doing some statistical analysis would be a good idea.
Maybe doing a statistical analysis of the media reporting would be a good idea too.
Unfortunately such studies are not usually reported in the media.

I think the people who abuse public services should face fines and I think the SPOT service should be paying for a lot of the rescue costs in cases of abuse.
SPOT does charge for insurance to cover rescue costs, so maybe if they were actually paying for it they could figure out a way to reduce the number of false calls without impairing the service too much.

I do still think SAR should be there as a public service, but I think it is like other public services.
I mean we don't go setting our fire alarms off without expecting a serious fine if it was just a joke.
Yet at the same time we don't fine people for accidental false alarms.

There is a serious problem in addressing this problem of "Yuppie 911s" because it is easy to decide on a zero tolerance policy which would be counterproductive instead of a commonsense policy which would unfortunately require common sense from everybody enforcing it.

The one thing I have found about statistics, and this comes from a company auditor; more statistics just give you another method to find flaws, seldom are the improvements noted. maybe a bit cynical and certainly not a perfect statement.....

Didn't I read in Backpacker a few months back there was a guy who tracked all PLB responses for the last ten years or so? I don't have my copy anymore. Maybe it was just for injuries and not rescue.

they need a dispatcher and triage system. For example:

"SPOT dispatch, what's your problem?"
-"I fell down a cliff and broke my femur (aaah! owww! aah!! in the background"
"OK, we'll contact SAR. It'll take them about 10 hours to reach your site."

versus

"SPOT dispatch, what's your problem?"
-"I ran out of beer..I mean, water! The bugs are too buggy! My cell phone is out of reception!"
"OK, we'll contact SAR. It'll take them about 10 hours to reach your site. There will be a $10,000 charge to recoup losses."
-"Uh.... I can walk out in 4 hours. Never mind."

Probably not possible to implement, given the current system. Though it could be contractual before the fact.

But I applaud the sentiment.

Maybe drop it down to "at least $2,000.00." I remember being a dirt-poor student, when two grand was a colossal amount of cash.

Bottom line, I think, when you hit that switch, you will be extracted by SAR/law enforcement, whether you like it or not.

(The option: "Okay, stay and sign this waiver. If you poke us again, we ain't comin', dumb@ss,")

Something similar happens when U.S. Embassies and Consulates overseas get such calls, often from college kids on spring break. They, too, have had to implement measures to prevent frivolous use and abuse of their services.

"Yeah, hi, um, I've run out of money and need a place to stay and help getting home."

"Cetainly, Sir, we'd be happy to help. We'll need the names and contact details of three members of your immediate family and your permission to contact them. If they are unable to help, then we would be happy to provide you with a no-cost loan to cover your return expenses. We'll be replacing your passport with a one-time passport good only for return to the USA. You won't be able to leave the USA again until the loan is paid and, in the event you choose not to pay, well, we're the Government, so we'll just dock your pay. So, could I get those names and numbers, please?"

"Um, well, I guess I'll just call my Mom."

"That's fine, Sir, feel free to call back if you still need our help."

I see absolutely no reason why there shouldn't be standards as to what is and is not an emergency and, if you make a nuisance or unjustified call on a PLB, you get billed for the cost. If a genuine emergency, I have no problem with all of us sharing the burden (you wouldn't want to get a bill from the fire department added to your woes if the house burned down). But if frivoluous, by all means, bill them or at the very least make it a ticketable offense with a hefty fine.

I suppose it was inevitable. The problem with implementing fines is that people who may truly need help may wait too long to ask for it. Truly objective standards may be hard to draft since there are so many creative and unpredictable ways people find to get into trouble.

The Coast Guard used to get many calls that were not emergencies, such as boaters out of gas, or who suffered mechanical failure because of poor maintenance. We would usually provide a tow to the nearest marina, but the calls in some jurisdictions outnumbered the true emergency calls.

Then they instituted a policy of not providing assistance unless people or property were in real danger, otherwise we would advise the boater to call a local tow service. It eventually reduced the number of non emergency calls, but it took a long time for the boating public to get accustomed to the new policy, and in the meantime there was still the expense of responding to every call.

I actually discussed this with an LT on my local fire dept this weekend. I teach him bagpiping, and after the lesson we got around to talking about "false" 911 calls. They regularly get calls (the calls for 911 come into the FD) for people who have locked themselves out, a few to have someone come over to change fuses, lightbulbs, things of those nature, a woman called recently to complain about the color of the fire hydrant even (they recently painted their home, and the hydrant now clashed colors). Not that this is exactly on topic, but people seem to use the 911 system not for emergencies, but as a complaint line. And I am SURE that this doesnt just occur here...

I am still of the same opinion as before.

"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

or in this case:

"Don't play if you can't pay".

Meaning don't take the risk if you can't afford to lose. I find it interesting that people who would never sit down to a poker game and expect the guy sitting next to them to cover their bet will gladly head to the hills and expect someone else to foot their bill if something goes wrong.

Why does it seem okay to foist off one's responsibilities on others in order to have a little fun in one instance, and not in others? Heading into the wilderness unprepared is not much different than betting on red at the roulette table. Would anyone even think of taking chips off someone else's stack in that situation?

The fear I have is two fold ( trust me I have more fears, but lets limit it down to these two)

1) "The boy how cried wolf" syndrome. When the punks finaly are in true trouble, the rescuers are less inclined to respond, or respond slower due to having been paged out by the bafoonary induced call for refreshments, and the person is actualy injured. As I say this I do realize that Rescurers are required, and DO, respond with the same level of effort and responsiveness to every call, even if they know it may be the fools they responded two times previously.

2) The sheer fact that we have over saftyed things, where poeple will continue to push themselves in unsafe ways, becouse they had the PLB.

Now that's just funny as hell.
Thanks!

I simply don't buy any of the "if I use safety gear then I'll put things to the edge and/or be willing to do something stupid just because I know I can" thing.

That's ...

like saying I'm willing to crash my truck because I have insurance or because I wear a seat belt.

like driving my ATV recklessly just because I'm wearing a helmet.

like pointing my shotgun at my children because it has a safety switch.

I'd rather see people carry PLB's and be saved than not.

Its not much different with the police and fire departments... at least from my viewpoint. They spend most of the time dealing with losers, idiots, and goofballs (maybe less so for the fire dept), but I am happy to pay my taxes knowing that they will be there on the very rare occasion when I need them.

"...I think the SPOT service should be paying for a lot of the rescue costs in cases of abuse."

The problem is not with the unit or the manufacturer, it's with the OPERATOR.

Sue Glock if you shoot yourself in the foot?

Sue Craftsman if you drill a hole in your hand?

Sue Ford for crashing when you fall asleep at the wheel?

How about we put the blame where it belongs? Maybe for the sheer novelty of it.

What about elevating the charge for responses to nonsense calls every time someone calls? Get the IDs of all involved so they don't pass the blame around.

Sue

Somewhere I remember reading something written by a paramedic, along the lines of 'the patient that you have to watch is the one that is apologizing for calling you out.' I personally have a retired friend who didn't call 911 when she had chest pains because she didn't want to 'make a fuss'.

There will always be people that abuse the system, either out of ignorance or some sort of sense of entitlement; but there will also always be those who are too scared, timed or self-deprecating to call for help when they need it. Laws aren't going to fix that. Giving the professionals and volunteers out in the field some flexibility in how the respond can help.

Or in short: I think it's worth saving 10 idiots from their own lack of planning as long as we save the one sweet old lady, too.

Tom, you missed the point.

It's not about who you save, it's about holding people accountable. I don't think you can equate someone stuck on a hillside with a daypack and a sore back seeking a quick fix to someone in cardiac distress, and they don't have to be treated the same either.

Regardless of the circumstance, though, I believe everyone should be accountable for their own welfare, at least to the extent that their situation at any given time is a personal circumstance, and not the result of some common need, as with a natural disaster for instance. Everyone should make provisions to pay their own way through life, right up to the end. To the extent they can't, I believe they have failed a fundamental requirement for being here.

I say go after the people with the money in their pockets. SPOT is providing a service and are charging for it. They are piggy backing their service on what are free services and they are charging insurance premiums to cover the recovery costs.
In effect the people who use and abuse the SPOT system have already paid for the privilege of hitting that button for whatever reason they choose when they paid the insurance premium and the other SPOT subscription fees.

If the insurers were on the hook they would figure out some way to collect or refuse payments for frivolous use or for recklessness.

If you go after the hikers you will usually end up trying to collect from pockets that only have lint in them.

Why should the public purse be expected to underwrite a private business venture?

Read the post and think before misinterpreting what was said and starting to scream about personal responsibility.

We are already paying for rescuing the idiots and unfortunately in the real world there are plenty of idiots.
It is also an unfortunate condition that it is cheaper to have a SAR system working than it is to simply let the morons become Darwin Award winners.
It is also unfortunate that a private corporation is using a public service for private profit and failing to compensate the actual service providers.

Personal resposibility?
Lets talk about the real world with real humans in it instead of Utopian fantasies.

Kind of difficult to interpret your assertion other than an abandonment of personal responsibility. Punishing a manufacturer for the poor judgment and lack of education of a few paints with way too broad a brush for my taste. Is it too much to assume that people will use an emergency communication device only for an emergency? I think not.

Yes, there will be people that call 911 when McDonalds runs out of Chicken McNuggets. Don't laugh, it really happened about three months ago. Under your policy, we should sue the manufacturer of the cell phone because they failed to warn the user that they might be arrested for making stupid police report using the cell phone.

When the ravenous class action attorneys get involved, the result will likely be bankruptcy and the loss of a product that would otherwise provide low-cost protection and save lives. I say that even though I prefer ARC's MicroFix and and do not own a SPOT.

People need to understand that their actions have consequences. Focusing on the "deep pocket" lets them off the hook and does nothing more than punish the public at large. YMMV.

Perhaps it is worthwhile to mention that the offenders in the most egregious case, the Grand Canyon case, were indeed cited, and, more than likely, will pay a significant fine. The NPS has the ability to do this, and it is standard practice for similar cases, and has been doing so for many years. I doubt that the NPS is unique in this regard.

Some of the cases cited in the original article are marginal calls - there isn't enough information provided to know for certain (how unusual!). Marginal callouts have been around since Noah floated his ark. About one-third of the callouts I participated in were "unnecessay" in retrospect, in that the situation would have come to a satisfactory conclusion without SAR intervention. The individuals were typically overdue, hungry, and tired, but moving along steadily.

Another approach, and one compatible with ETS and its objectives, is user education. Wouldn't it be useful if every unit had a little hangtag with a brief summary of preparedness principles and a discussion of when NOT to use the gadget?

Our unit walked both sides of the street, responding aggressively to situations, but also mounting public education campaigns and demonstrations. I know of several situations where the education paid off. This is unglamorous side of SAR, because it doesn't generate headlines, but it does save time, lives, and money.

Ohhhh, I like that. Kind of like a tag version of Doug's how-to in his kits.

Maybe with all that free time of his (ha!) Doug could write up a water resistant tag (oh, firestarter material!) that a manufacturer could voluntarily hang on SPOTs and PLBs that would give a list of basic recommended preventative measures, survival gear, survival methods(short!), methods for getting found, and a reminder that the devices are only to be used when in real serious danger of loss of life. They might even mention Doug's PSP kit.

I'm not feeling overly creative this afternoon (sigh), but can anyone give Doug a huge head start?

Well, the point I was making is you go after the money, not the person. If I was to think like a lawyer then the answer is to sue everybody in sight and then sue a few extra people that you heard might have been in sight. The Judge can figure out at his own leisurely legal pace who pays who and how much.

I was not thinking of punishment as much as I was thinking about cost recovery, but punishment might be needed to reduce some of the abuse.
I think Hikermor's comments on that and on current policy are quite to the point.

As for the cleaning of the gene pool, well it seems there is more drift there than actual flushing. It only takes a slightly higher or lower reproductive rate for a genetic trait to dominate the population.
Besides that you can think of the fools in the same way as the bible says about the poor. They will always be with you.

Sure, why not?
You can sue McDonald's if you spill coffee on your own lap.

You can sue Big Tobacco for the cancer they "gave" you, of course by forcing smoke down your lungs multiple times daily for years.

You can sue a homeowner when you're capability for walking is exceeded by a sidewalk.

I think here in the US, there's so much frivilous BS that unfortunately, the precedent has left "responsiblilty" and gone into stupidity.

I might be getting close to crossing over some forum rules, but I think you get my point.

So, then who would you go after in the case of a Personal Locator Beacon (PLB) alerted “rescue” of an idiot? Would it be ACR, McMurdo, Pains Wessex, or whatever other manufacturer produced the PLB unit that sent the alert? Why, exactly, would that manufacturer be responsible since their device only sent an alert to a system (Cospas-Sarsat) created by the governments of Canada, France, United States, and the former Soviet Union for the express purpose of distress alert and location?

It seems completely counter-intuitive for governing bodies to create an entire satellite communication network for the express purposes of distress alert and location, then to place the cost of the actual rescue services on any manufacturer that markets a device that interfaces with that system. There wouldn’t be a manufacturer in their right mind that would pursue such a market.

In the case of the SPOT Satellite GPS Messenger, the question only gets more confusing since the device now communicates over a corporate satellite network (Globalstar) to a corporate risk mitigation service (GEOS Alliance) instead of directly to a government communication network. Which deep-pocket corporation gets to pay the government for their “rescue” (read, “babysitting,”) efforts here?

Shall Motorola, Nokia, et al. start emptying their pockets when people make pointless distress calls using their cell phones? How about the companies that laid the fiber lines the cell towers use to communicate to the telephone network?

See where this goes?

Maybe the folks who are profiting by selling the idea that the use of their equipment and the publicly funded 911/EMS/SAR systems will save their customer's asses should at least help pick up the tab?

If it weren't for publicly funded emergency systems, SPOT would not be in business. Doesn't matter who they pay for the use of their satellites.

Money does not equal liability. Just because someone is making a buck or two by mitigating some of the risk we as individuals take with our lives daily doesn't mean they should be punished for it. It doesn't matter if the perpetrator is broke or not; that's not the point. The point is deterring naive people from making stupid decisions without any forethought or planning, causing the rest of us to bail them out of a situation they got themselves into, and have only themselves to blame for it. I am not inclined to go punish a company that provides me with a hedge against some of the mistakes I might make simply because some idiot decided to use their device inappropriately. I would much rather bring down the wrath of God on the fool that pushed the button because he ran out of water on a dayhike and didn't feel like walking the 5 miles back to his car.

Again, it sounds like some of us would rather kink the system that was put in place to help us all out than to punish those who choose to abuse that system for their own selfish gain at the expense of the rest of us. That just don't make no sense. If SPOT can find a way to make a buck or two by helping us all be a little safer out in the wilderness, then kudos to them, and I wish them the best of luck and hope they will continue to provide their services at a decent price. There would be no hope of doing that if we somehow made them pay the price for the abuse a few dummies perpetuate.

Now, if someone out there is providing rescue insurance, then I would certainly expect them to foot the bill for the cost of rescuing their customers, even the stupid ones. If an insurance company is going to insure people for doing stupid things, then they deserve what they get, unless they manage to get judgement proof exclusions in their policies. In that case, caveat emptor, and you'd best only push that button if you are in a real crisis situation. If I read it correctly, GEOS is a company that is providing that sort of coverage (up to $100,000 per rescue), for something like $8 a year. That seems pretty fair, and certainly quite doable.

Knowing that, anyone stupid enough to trek off into the woods without first acquiring both a means of being located and some insurance to cover the costs of resuce gets what they deserve, up to and including a grieving widow(er).

highlighted by me

They offer the additional rescue insurance from GEOS at $7.95(?) a year for up to $100,000.00 for a maximum of two rescues in a year.

In case anybody is still missing the point a person who has purchased the SPOT service has already made the agreement to pay SPOT for the privilege of pushing that button whenever they choose for any reason they like.
SPOT has accepted (demanded) payment for that privilege and that effectively transfers the responsibility to the SPOT service for such abuses. The disclaimer in the first sentence might not protect them in spite of their desire that it does.

I suspect a lawyer arguing against any personal fines would bring up this issue and the concept of double jeopardy might apply as well.
The insurance they presently charge for also carries heavy penalties for abuse.

If there is a problem over what amount SPOT has demanded payment for then maybe they should charge the $7.95 a year for the insurance rider and include it as part of the service automatically.
$7.95 is not likely to be a deal breaker for anybody buying their beacon so the argument about it driving them out of business is very questionable.

The fact is that SPOT is already charging the money.

You should also note the standard disclaimers on their GEOS insurance policy and their payment terms.
http://www.geosalliance.com/sar/

That would be akin to forcing US Cellular to foot the bill everytime someone calls 911 for some bogus problem. You are essentially paying US Cellular for the privilege of dialing 911 through their system to get emergency service response (although as I understand it, most cell service providers are under some agreement with ES to provide the 911 coverage free of charge, provided you have a phone that will work on their network). I don't anyone here sees any difference between the service SPOT provides and that of any other communications carrier service, even presuming that SPOT's ES provisions are exclusive, which they are not. SPOT is not getting paid to mitigate any liability of use, they are getting paid to provide a communications resource. GEOS offers the liability coverage, at an additional fee, which is akin to Ford making the car and Allstate providing the insurance for the operation of the car. I think that would be an affirmative defense. They are charging money, but not to relieve the end user of their strict liability of responsible use. No different than trying to sue Gun manufacturers for making guns that kill because some knothead used a gun to commit a crime.

As we've already established, abuse/misuse of the SAR services is punishable, regardless of the method used. Allowing an easier method to do it does not imply a liability of use, no more so than would making a gun that is able to shoot more than one bullet between reloads an assumption by the manufacturer of liability for how a gun is used.

It seems there is only one person missing the point in this debate. Is it me?

Those policy disclaimers that GEOS published seem to be a standard type: Exercise due diligence, and you can't fix stupid.

It's surprising to me, how many people still get in trouble in the Grand Canyon, given the amount of warning signs at the visitor centers and trailheads:

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~sandiway/hikes/grandcanyon/warning.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2159/2060598458_623bb6f3e2.jpg


http://www.granneman.com/images/20030806_grand_canyon_hiker.jpg

Actually, after a career in the NPS, I am not at all surprised that there are folks who do not heed warning signs. Remember however that we are discussing a few memorable incidents , a very small percentage of the thousands of back country trips taken in the park each year.

US cellular is not charging for any false alarm calls to 911. Spot is charging for them. That changes everything and because it indicates they are aware of the problem and the fact they have attempted to prevent being effected by it by levying their own fines makes them responsible for it under due diligence requirements.
Not only that, by deciding to determine for themselves after the call has been made whether the call was abuse or negligence, and charging a fee if it was they have assumed responsibility for the validity of the call.
This also brings in the idea that they knowingly are creating a public nuisance.
The legalese in their contract to avoid liability only serves to show the problem was forseeable and that they themselves considered it forseeable.

Ben, this is not about morality or reasonableness. It is about American justice and who gets to pay to play.

Here is an excerpt from a Judges comments regarding the attempt to sue ICI for supplying the fertilizer used by the Oklahoma City bomber.
The lawsuit failed but not for the reasons you might expect.

I don't believe I did, but I probably didn't explain what I meant well.

There is always going to be a class of people that are afraid to ask for help, and need it, let's call that group "T" for timid. There is also always going to be a group of people that are clueless or arrogant and will call for help when they don't need it. Let's call that group "C" for clueless.

You can't change the way these people behave any more than you can teach sheep to read. When you try to change things to fix it, holding people accountable financially for example, you make the T people more timid, but don't make the C people less clueless. In short, you've made the problem worse.

Or in other words - legal systems put in place to make things better in an attempt at changing people's behavior often work backwards of the original intent.

It goes along with the saying "You can't teach a pig to sing. It doesn't work, and it annoys the pig." I'd add that it's also very frustrating for the people trying to give out the singing lessons...and I believe what people are talking about is singing lessons.

I think the major and the obvious difference between a cell phone company allowing it's users access to the 911 system and the SPOT system is that SPOT is selling a service where their people contact the authorities on the behalf of those using the SPOT device.

If a cellular phone company offered to call EMS for me using their operators and I tell them I'm in the midst of an emergency and to please send help and they do so, they are acting as my agent. If they do so without ascertaining what the emergency is, then they share the liability. In the cases where people are using SPOT for what I think most people would call frivolous reasons, it was the good people at SPOT who actually called for help. If they're going to use publicly funded EMS and 911 services to provide help for their customers, then they should be held liable for the misuse of their own system.

Hmm, the idea of a switchboard operation and someone on the other end of the SPOT system making a judgement call about the nature of the emergency might change the mix a bit. If it were just a pass through service like a cell phone connection, then I would expect the same rules to be in play, whether charged for or not (in the case of the cell providers, their fee for 911 service is absorbed as overhead, meaning the cost for the service is indirectly billed to the network as a whole, which I don't think alleviates their connections. A ham operator that provides a free interconnect on a community repeater can still be held accountable for other people's use of that system, especially if it violates any laws or regulations).

I guess we'll just have to see how that situation evolves. If SPOTs postion really is that tenuous, I suspect someone will eventually file suit against them in some way. If that happens and SPOT loses the case, I'll do my level best to make sure anyone I find using the service from then on has a legitimate cause for pushing the button, like a broken leg, or arm, or nose. LOL

If a minimum-wage operator fielded a distress call and made the wrong decision, I can see that turning into a lawsuit.

"I'll do my level best to make sure anyone I find using the service from then on has a legitimate cause for pushing the button, like a broken leg, or arm, or nose."

If all they've got is a broken nose, they can breathe through their mouth and walk out. Don't waste the taxpayers money for that!

Sue

There are so many things askew here, I don't know where to begin. First off, subsequent remedial measures are not admissible in a tort action to prove the alleged negligent act. If someone sues a grocery store saying the floor was slick and the grocery store puts down a rubber mat where someone slipped, that is not admissible in evidence to prove the floor was slick.

Secondly, providing for contingencies in a contract with a subscriber or anyone else for that matter is simply attributing the risk of loss and an attempt to potentially liquidate damages. Anticipating the potential breach or negligence of a contracting party does not make such acts foreseeable by the party who shifts the risk of loss.

The case citation you quoted appears to stand for a long- established legal principal that the manufacturer of a product is not responsible for its misuse unless such misuse is reasonably foreseeable. That would rarely be the case applying was is commonly called the objective reasonable person standard. And a manufacturer cannot be held responsible for the intentional or criminal misuse of their product by others. All the class action lawyers have tried that against the gun manufacturers and failed.

I am saddened that our society has apparently abandoned the concept of personal responsibility in favor of the scapegoat tactic of "going after the money". It has hurt the US on the global market and will continue to the plague of small and large businesses alike until there are consequences to filing a frivolous lawsuit.

You have elected to take this conversation to a place I will not go. I refuse to engage in discussion which would tend in any way to tarnish the memory of the brave heroes of 9/11. I am done, sir.

So Cellar, your answer is that nobody should be held responsible for their actions. Private citizen or public company.
Edit: I had deleted my post before reading your response.
I didn't besmirch anybody's memory by what I said and am reposting it.
If you want to hide by wrapping yourself up in the hyperpatriotism that is fine, but don't accuse me of slandering dead people.
I only pointed out the fallacy of your argument about personal responsibility and blaming the victims.
You really should read that request for discovery though. It is quite interesting. The Port Authority who were responsible for keeping the buildings safe are trying to shift the blame to the Government and to the Airlines who owned the jets.
____
Previous post which I had deleted:
So you think businesses should not be sued for damages caused by their actions under any circumstances Celler?

If you think the article I quoted there was weird try reading this one.
http://www.sept11tortlitigation.com/pdf/PANYNJWTC7_Memo_Support_Focused_Discovery_Govt.pdf

If you do read it keep in mind that the Port Authority was named in the suite and is doing their best to place the blame on somebody else.
This is one of the reasons lawyers say sue everybody in sight and let them fight over it. Quite often the defendants will convict each other as they try to avoid their own responsibility.

Of course, by your guy's reasoning, the only people responsible for people getting killed in the WTC Towers were the victims foolish enough to work there. They all knew the place was a target and it was not the first time it was attacked either.
By your argument they should be expected to cowboy up and accept their responsibility for their own deaths which they invited by going there.
However even the most dedicated libertarian would find that position far too politically incorrect to defend.


Now about the wet floor analogy. It is not the same thing because the person didn't misuse the floor by walking on it and cost somebody else money. The result is nobody is suing for the damages the person falling cost them. Maybe the fire department should consider it though, now that you pointed it out.
However. If the store had a floor that got slippery when wet and did nothing about it they are indeed liable for a person's injuries if they slip and fall.
Even putting a slippery when wet sign out ahead of time might not protect them from a legal action if it can be shown they should have expected the sign to be ignored.

About whether the legal system is sane or not I will not comment. It is the American system and that is how your country works.
I would only add that in a lot of countries corporations face much stiffer laws regarding responsibility for their actions than they do in the USA.

I would like to be able to save the old lady and, while we are at it, nominate ten people for the Darwin Awards.

Jeanette Isabelle