I may be a little slow, but what's the lesson here?

Did anyone else besides Doug actually read the article? The guy's death had nothing to do with the evacuation, I'm not even sure why it was mentioned. The title of the article would have been slightly more accurate if it had read "1 dead after heeding evacuation orders". From the way it sounds you could pick any number or random events and tie it to his death, it could have been called "1 dead after drinking his morning coffee". Seems like it was just a freak accident which just happened to coincide with an evacuation order at the time.