Overreact Much?
My pal Lenore Skenazy writes in the WSJ on over-hyped child-related panics, like the one where an Applebees waiter accidentally served some toddler a very strong glass of "apple juice":
The parents noticed something was wrong when, the mother reported, the boy started saying "hi" to the walls.Applebee's went apoplectic with proactiveness, declaring that not only would it retrain its entire wait staff that instant, but from now on it would only use single-serve juices. Which is not an evil response, of course (except environmentally), but it sure is overkill. Applebee's reacted as if serving toddlers stiff drinks had been company-wide policy.
The child's parents, meanwhile, reacted as if the kid had been deliberately served a plateful of steaming plutonium. Their "emotional distress" was so great that they--this will shock you--sued. Whether the individuals are mirroring corporate hysteria or vice versa, the final score was: Overreaction: 2. Common sense: 0.
This collective decision not to distinguish between rare screw-ups and systemic dangers is turning us into neurotic Nellies who worry about, warn against and, finally, outlaw very safe things. My favorite recall from the Consumer Product Safety Commission a few years back concerned a chair that had a screw protruding from the underside. While the commission reported that there had been "no reports of injuries to humans," there had been "one report of a dog's fur becoming entangled in the screw."
Call my lawyer! When a twisted tuft is enough to prompt a 20,000-chair recall, that's setting the safety bar pretty high.
...Despite the fact that baby abductions are exceedingly rare--last year CNN reported a single baby was abducted from a health-care facility--CNN felt compelled to give its viewers tip after tip on how to make sure this does not happen to them. Overreaction or ratings grab? Same thing.
...I'm sorry, but if the chances are about one in four million that a baby is going to be abducted, the idea that a mother who has just gone through childbirth now has to drag her bassinet into the bathroom to be safe from a nearly nonexistent threat is more than ridiculous. It's cruel.
So if you want to enjoy a happier, healthier 2012, it's very easy. Just ignore the temptation to overreact to minuscule threats . . . and have a shot of whatever that toddler was drinking.
That "retraining" must have been hilarious. "No gin and tonics for 3-year-olds..." I place much of the blame on the sue-happy. You?
Hey I used to save a FORTUNE buying the drinks "for my kid" on Kids Eat Free Thursdays...no chance of that now.
Vinnie Bartilucci at December 28, 2011 11:05 AM
There are at least a couple of layers. 1) Sue-happy - Yup. If lawyers couldn't make their own work, we'd have long ago had a lawyer bubble burst that dwarfed that of the dot.com. We have a saturation of lawyers. But they can escape normal supply/demand dynamics by creating their own work (ambulance chasers). No small number would be greater benefits to society by flipping hamburgers.
2) Increasing intolerance of risk. Many will go apoplectic over vanishingly small risks. The specific individuals did a stupid, uncommon act that deserves a penalty. Not 'Fist of an Angry God' retribution against Teh Great Satan Applebees.
David T Sanson at December 28, 2011 11:13 AM
Lawyers. Lawyers have professional ethical obligations not to take cases that have little/no chance of winning. Back in the day, that was also interpreted to mean that lawyers would and should exercise common sense about taking cases that were designed to harass "deep pockets" into settling just to get rid of the nuisance, or suing people for honest one-time mistakes. Nowadays there are so many lawyers with such low standards, there is always some skuzzball who will take any case. Also, the plaintiff's bar lobbies for serpentine regulations that companies can't fail to screw up, which then generates business for plaintiff's attorneys who sue over the mistakes!
Jennifer at December 28, 2011 11:25 AM
This is far more common than you think. I know several parents who had their kids served alcohol-usually in hard lemonade instead of regular, but also the odd virgin drink that wasn't. Most aren't happy about it (if you're a parent with a drunk preschooler, you will be staying up all night watching them to make sure they don't stop breathing. It's just what parents do) but accept a restaurant that is sorrowful and makes amends. The one most upset was a foster family who had their foster toddler served. That could have made legal problems for them had some medical test or surprise visit happened, and they had to report it or risk prosecution if it were found out whic involved an investigation.
Plus, kids and colds-and cold meds-are frequently found together. Alcohol can do unpleasant things when mixed with cold meds.
That said, the parents shouldn't sue. There were no real damages and the restaurant obviously isn't displaying an ongoing lack of concern in kids safety.
But, I am the mom who once put 6 drops of bourbon in each of my twins bottles when they were about 5 months old, b/c my mom and I were about to pull our hair out with lack of sleep and my very old great aunt said it would help them sleep. It didn't. My twins are happy and loquacious drunks.
Also, I would drink a beer a night when bfing the second 2-my hispanic MIL swears that ups your milk production. It did help those 2 sleep when I drank it before nursing....and I had the odd drink while preggers. I just don't freak out THAT much about a little bit of alcohol exposure. But some people do.
momof4 at December 28, 2011 6:04 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/overreact-much.html#comment-2881962">comment from momof4My twins are happy and loquacious drunks.
Hah - love that. People here are making me laugh today, just when I need it most.
Amy Alkon
at December 28, 2011 6:06 PM
What the hell is 'strong' apple juice?
lujlp at December 29, 2011 7:22 AM
Leave a comment