Hiker dies of thirst!

[+DutchBoy]

check out this article

 

article

[+tozainamboku]

Ban all non-LP caches. They are too dangerous.

[vtmtnman]

Ban all non-LP caches. They are too dangerous.

 

......

 

[vtmtnman]

check out this article

 

article

 

I'd say someone hallucinating would be good enough cause for 'emergency water'.Correct me if I'm wrong here.

[+sbell111]

Didn't that happen last year?

[+flask]

the thing that worries me is that they thought they were doing him a favor in not letting him "fail" the course. seems to me that there needs to be an adjustment of attitude. the guy spent a lot of money on that course. had he been given water, he might have been very angry at failing. i'm going to suggest that maybe the school could come up with a system that doesn't pit people's lives so heavily against their expenditure of cash and energy.

[+TotemLake]

Didn't that happen last year?

Similar situation. Hiker crossing a desert died within sight of his car with water in it.

[+Miragee]

check out this article

 

article

I'd say someone hallucinating would be good enough cause for 'emergency water'.Correct me if I'm wrong here.

From the article:

Buschow's death was caused by dehydration and electrolyte imbalance, according to Dr. Edward Leis, Utah's deputy chief medical examiner, who found no evidence of drugs or other factors.

 

DeTar, a camper who performed CPR, said no one was told that BOSS guides carried emergency water, but "I heard it slosh" in a pack.

 

Should it have been offered to Buschow? And if it's for an emergency, what triggers it?

I also wonder "what triggers it?"

[Dinoprophet]

Didn't that happen last year?

 

Yes. It's not clear from the article why the AP is probing it. It only says:

Nearly a year later, documents obtained by The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act reveal those and other previously undisclosed details of what turned out to be a death march for Buschow. They also raise questions about the judgments and priorities of the guides at the Boulder Outdoor Survival School.

[+sbell111]

Didn't that happen last year?

Similar situation. Hiker crossing a desert died within sight of his car with water in it.

No, this article is a rehash. This is from the seventh paragraph:

Nearly a year later, documents obtained by The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act reveal those and other previously undisclosed details of what turned out to be a death march for Buschow.

[+egami]

Personally, I would of probably chosen to let him fail the course. To me that's a moral decision.

[+sbell111]

check out this article

 

article

I'd say someone hallucinating would be good enough cause for 'emergency water'.Correct me if I'm wrong here.

From the article:

Buschow's death was caused by dehydration and electrolyte imbalance, according to Dr. Edward Leis, Utah's deputy chief medical examiner, who found no evidence of drugs or other factors.

 

DeTar, a camper who performed CPR, said no one was told that BOSS guides carried emergency water, but "I heard it slosh" in a pack.

 

Should it have been offered to Buschow? And if it's for an emergency, what triggers it?

I also wonder "what triggers it?"

I'm thinking that if one of the instructors were thirsty, it would be an emergency.

[+Miragee]

Yup . . . And, if the water in those "emergency bottles" was "sloshing," the bottles were no longer full . . .

[+TrailGators]

check out this article

 

article

A lot of people don't realize that once you get spaced out from being dehydrated, you are in a world of hurt if you are in the desert. We hear of cases where people are riding dirt bikes or quads and the vehicle breaks down or runs out of gas and they die because they didn't bring enough water. You can die very quickly in the desert. Edited May 4, 2007 by TrailGators

[+hairball45]

I especially enjoyed the "trainers'" legal weasel words denying culpability. What self serving carp.

HG

[+Renegade Knight]

...I also wonder "what triggers it?"

 

Good question. Dying of thirst is 20/20 hind sight. Halucinations? I have not heard of that as a thirst thing. Sun Stroke though...maybe (which also takes water...)

 

I've gone on day hikes in the Canyon and brought 3L of water in a CamelBak 2L of Mountain Dew (not the best idea...) and still ran out and came out thirsty. I'm not sure there is such a thing as too much water.

[+Totem Clan]

I'm not sure there is such a thing as too much water.

Yes there is actually, however overhydration is not a common occurrence.

 

Overhydration

[ATMouse]

I have no respect for this sort of macho trash. Halucinations are a not uncommon near the end of a "soon-to-die" dehydration cycle. It was the staff's responsibility to monitor their clients.

 

Carp and carp again. I hope none of them ever has another decent night's sleep.

[+sbell111]

...I also wonder "what triggers it?"

Good question. Dying of thirst is 20/20 hind sight. Halucinations? I have not heard of that as a thirst thing. Sun Stroke though...maybe (which also takes water...)

 

I've gone on day hikes in the Canyon and brought 3L of water in a CamelBak 2L of Mountain Dew (not the best idea...) and still ran out and came out thirsty. I'm not sure there is such a thing as too much water.

I believe Miragee was questioning the instructors' view of what would trigger an emergency. One would imagine that an emergency situation would be determined at some point before the student died. Otherwise, it is kind of ironic to call the wet stuff 'emergency water'. Edited May 4, 2007 by sbell111

[+Totem Clan]

Maybe the "emergency" water was so they could wash their hands of it after the emergency.

[+sbell111]

Maybe the "emergency" water was so they could wash their hands of it after the emergency.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I also wonder "what triggers it?"

Good question. Dying of thirst is 20/20 hind sight. Halucinations? I have not heard of that as a thirst thing. Sun Stroke though...maybe (which also takes water...)

 

I've gone on day hikes in the Canyon and brought 3L of water in a CamelBak 2L of Mountain Dew (not the best idea...) and still ran out and came out thirsty. I'm not sure there is such a thing as too much water.

I believe Miragee was questioning the instructors' view of what would trigger an emergency. One would imagine that an emergency situation would be determined at some point before the student died. Otherwise, it is kind of ironic to call the wet stuff 'emergency water'.

Ideally the instructors had training in such things. It's possible that they didn't. I think Miragee has hit the crux of the case. Did the hiker present recongizeable signs (the halucinating with AT Mouse has said is a sign) or did the Instructors lack the knowlege needed? They didn't give a lot of real information or if they did it was burried in the larger article.

[+sbell111]

I would think that if you were to hold a course like this, it would be important to have enough instructors to properly monitor the participants and to train them to look for the signs and ask the right questions (darn near any questions, actually).

[+wordnerd]

The article also said people were vomiting, which is another sign of dehydration (or heaving, I guess). And it said that they reached a water source but did not allow him to fill up his bottle. Does that mean they did not let him drink from a cup either? It wasn't clear whether he had a drink at that first drink stop.

 

I think that the guides should have at least asked the hikers "Do you want to quit?" I mean, they could always come back and try again another time. It's not up to the guides to decide who makes it and who doesn't. I mean the guy said, "Go get me water" at the end. The guide should have said, "If I get the water, you understand that you didn't make it?" I dont' know. At least give the guy the option to live or die. Don't decide for him. I dont' care what forms he signed. That group was liable.

 

It's a lot like those trucks you drive behind, with the signs on the back that say "Not responsible for items that fly off this truck." Uh....you're not? Then who is? Cause somebody's gonna pay for the damage to my car.

 

Okay, I'm getting off on a tangent. The moral of the story is, you are responsible for yourself and others around you. And bring water.

[+Harry Dolphin]

As a new article, it contains a bit much hyperbole. "Death march" seems a bit strong. But news reporting has become sensationalism. Same article on the front page of the Star-Ledger on 5/3/07.

"The family has retained an attorney and was investigating its options." That could be a good reason for the 'rehash'. Heightened by the BOSS disclaimer "may not have trained properly pointing to comments ... reportedly made to another camper about drinking a gallon of water a day and eating cheesesteaks to bulk up before the expedition." And "Noting he signed the liability disclaimer ... assumed the risk of serious injury or death prior to participating." Culpability would, of course, be for a jury to decide.

On occasion I have suffered from dehydration, and learnt from that experience. And I've worried about other hikers starting off on a twelve mile hike at 3 PM with a liter of water for two.

It is my opinion that the staff was not properly trained for this expedition, even as a 'survival expedition.' No one should die from dehydration when there is water available.

[+TrailGators]

...I also wonder "what triggers it?"

Good question. Dying of thirst is 20/20 hind sight. Halucinations? I have not heard of that as a thirst thing. Sun Stroke though...maybe (which also takes water...)

Actually delerium does occur near the very end per Wikipedia:

"The symptoms become increasingly severe with greater water loss. One's heart and respiration rates begin to increase to compensate for decreased plasma volume and blood pressure, while body temperature may rise because of decreased sweating. Around 5% to 6% water loss, one may become groggy or sleepy, experience headaches or nausea, and may feel tingling in one's limbs (paresthesia). With 10% to 15% fluid loss, muscles may become spastic, skin may shrivel and wrinkle, vision may dim, urination will be greatly reduced and may become painful, and delirium may begin. Losses greater than 15% are usually fatal."

 

IMHO, the guides were negligent not to know the symptoms and react.

Edited May 5, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Too Tall John]

The thing that strikes me is that they weren't allowed to carry water, only to drink it from the source. All the wilderness survival advice I've ever heard starts with the same thing:

• Carry plenty of water
  

Seems like any course that teaches otherwise is a load of bull. The article also makes it sound like they were drinking directly from the streams. Sounds like a prime way to get giardia. Back to those survival techniques:

• Don't drink untreated water. You will get ill, which will dehydrate you.
  

A course that teaches otherwise is full of even more bull. Maybe the school should change its name to something where the acronym isn't BOSS, but BULL.

[magellan315]

Granted the aticle has a slant to it, there were some things that bothered me. It sounds like the staff is to focused on getting people to complete the class and thier emergency procedures and training are limited. When the hiker died a staff member climbed a tree to get cell phone reception. You would think they would have a stattelite phone, radio, or an emergency locator beacon. Something more reliable than a cell phone.

 

I have no doubt that the release of liability that the students signed is iron clad. Maybe if they can prove the staff was not properly trained to recognize when a student was medically at risk they'll have a chance.

Edited May 5, 2007 by magellan315

[+Snoogans]

I have no doubt that the release of liability that the students signed is iron clad. Maybe if they can prove the staff was not properly trained to recognize when a student was medically at risk they'll have a chance.

 

 

I often sign waivers as Mickey Mouse unless I'm being watched while I sign in which case I just scribble something that looks nothing like my own signature.

 

 

I doubt a waiver in this case will hold up with so many witnesses to the events of the day.

 

 

Slanted or not it looks as if the death could have been prevented. A good lawyer will get richer off of BOSS' insurance company. No tellin' how much the family will get.

[+genegene]

That liability papper would only hold up in my oppion, if he died from a snake bite, falling rocks, mt. lion, falling in a quicksand pit, lost from the group, failed to drink, etc. these might. Dehidration becouse the instructors failed to give him emergincy water that they had in there backpacks would NOT. That in my oppion is manslaghter, They knowingly knew he was ill and failed to get him medical attition, would be considered murder. Think of it this way, you are driving down a dirt road with no one around for miles and miles you have a cell phone on you and just houng up with your love at home. you come arround a corner, and there is a car slamed into a tree. you can see that there is some one still moveing inside and are really hurt. You decide that you are in a hurry and dont want to stop, or call for help becouse you are are on your way home and very tiered and need a shower. Well you go home and forget all about it. Two days later there is a nock at your door and it's the police and you are put in handcuffs and taken downtown. There you learn you are being charged with involentary manslaughter, leaving the seen of an accident, failing to notify police, and a number of other things that they feal like adding. The person in the car that you saw moveing, had her 5 yr. old daughter die from a fire that started in the car and she could not get to her becouse of a broken leg and a 5 broken ribs. All you had to do is stop and use that cellphone and pocket knife that you carry and you would not be in this situation. THIS STORY IS FICTIONAL ( NOT REAL ). But the rules still apply here in this story, they had water and failed to give it to him in an emergincy situation. They should be sued for everything they have in my oppion. Thanks for reading my Rant. I hate stupid PEOPLE. Just like Tommy Lee Jones said in M.I.B.1 ( A PERSON IS SMART, BUT PEOPLE ARE DUMP. )

[+Kit Fox]

That liability papper would only hold up in my oppion, if he died from a snake bite, falling rocks, mt. lion, falling in a quicksand pit, lost from the group, failed to drink, etc. these might. Dehidration becouse the instructors failed to give him emergincy water that they had in there backpacks would NOT. That in my oppion is manslaghter, They knowingly knew he was ill and failed to get him medical attition, would be considered murder. Think of it this way, you are driving down a dirt road with no one around for miles and miles you have a cell phone on you and just houng up with your love at home. you come arround a corner, and there is a car slamed into a tree. you can see that there is some one still moveing inside and are really hurt. You decide that you are in a hurry and dont want to stop, or call for help becouse you are are on your way home and very tiered and need a shower. Well you go home and forget all about it. Two days later there is a nock at your door and it's the police and you are put in handcuffs and taken downtown. There you learn you are being charged with involentary manslaughter, leaving the seen of an accident, failing to notify police, and a number of other things that they feal like adding. The person in the car that you saw moveing, had her 5 yr. old daughter die from a fire that started in the car and she could not get to her becouse of a broken leg and a 5 broken ribs. All you had to do is stop and use that cellphone and pocket knife that you carry and you would not be in this situation. THIS STORY IS FICTIONAL ( NOT REAL ). But the rules still apply here in this story, they had water and failed to give it to him in an emergincy situation. They should be sued for everything they have in my oppion. Thanks for reading my Rant. I hate stupid PEOPLE. Just like Tommy Lee Jones said in M.I.B.1 ( A PERSON IS SMART, BUT PEOPLE ARE DUMP. )

 

Your hypothetical situation is full of inaccuracies.

 

United States

Though the details of Good Samaritan laws in various jurisdictions vary, some features are common:

 

General guidelines

Unless a caretaker relationship (such as a parent-child or doctor-patient relationship) exists prior to the illness or injury, or the "Good Samaritan" is responsible for the existence of the illness or injury, no person is required to give aid of any sort to a victim.

 

What does an outdoor school, where a man died of dehydration have to do with geocaching anyways?

[vtmtnman]

 

What does an outdoor school, where a man died of dehydration have to do with geocaching anyways?

 

Drink water while caching in the desert.Or anywhere when it's hot.

 

Aside from that,apparently the mods think there's a connection if it's gone this long in GT and not moved to OT.

[+Rockin Roddy]

That question came to my mind as well Kit Fox...but what can you do?

 

The story has been run because they decided not to press charges after a lengthy investigation....which I for the life of me can't figure out! They let this guy die even after the guy asked for water.

 

Coming upon the scene of an accident and not reporting it is most likely a crime...I do believe I remember someone around here getting charged for just that a while back...if it's not, it's one of the most pathetic acts a person could ever do.

[+geomann1]

Legally, waivers do not hold up in the case of gross negligence (which cannot be waived), which would certainly be the case in this instance. Waivers are basically bluffs to deter people from suing.

 

Bottom line is that if you are running a survival school, it is gross negiligence for staff not to fully understand the risks involved, which would certainly involve dehyrdation, and not be monitoring all participants for signs of dehydration and have and implemented plans to treat it.

 

School owners and staff could be sued and would loose, although it is important to note that in the US there is a big difference between wining and collecting (ask OJ Simpson's victims families).

[+jAY miLLS]

I wonder who was using the "emergency" water if it was sloshing in the pack. The guides?! Hmmm curious.

[+Miragee]

I wonder who was using the "emergency" water if it was sloshing in the pack. The guides?! Hmmm curious.

I wondered the same thing . . .

Yup . . . And, if the water in those "emergency bottles" was "sloshing," the bottles were no longer full . . .

[+TrailGators]

Legally, waivers do not hold up in the case of gross negligence (which cannot be waived), which would certainly be the case in this instance. Waivers are basically bluffs to deter people from suing.

 

Bottom line is that if you are running a survival school, it is gross negiligence for staff not to fully understand the risks involved, which would certainly involve dehyrdation, and not be monitoring all participants for signs of dehydration and have and implemented plans to treat it.

 

School owners and staff could be sued and would loose, although it is important to note that in the US there is a big difference between wining and collecting (ask OJ Simpson's victims families).

I agree 100%. I remember that much from a business law class. It's a tragedy because of the gross negligence. It will be interesting to track what happens in this case.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Your hypothetical situation is full of inaccuracies.

 

United States

Though the details of Good Samaritan laws in various jurisdictions vary, some features are common:

 

General guidelines

Unless a caretaker relationship (such as a parent-child or doctor-patient relationship) exists prior to the illness or injury, or the "Good Samaritan" is responsible for the existence of the illness or injury, no person is required to give aid of any sort to a victim.

 

At the last CPR class I took they said that, though no one was required to personally give aid, they had to at least call for help or make certain that help had been called for. In other words, genegene's story of the person who didn't make the call is still technically accurate.

[salmoned]

I would certainly hope the guides were drinking water. Otherwise, they may not have been in a condition to make critical judgements - as in this instance.

[+Snake & Rooster]

Your hypothetical situation is full of inaccuracies.

 

United States

Though the details of Good Samaritan laws in various jurisdictions vary, some features are common:

 

General guidelines

Unless a caretaker relationship (such as a parent-child or doctor-patient relationship) exists prior to the illness or injury, or the "Good Samaritan" is responsible for the existence of the illness or injury, no person is required to give aid of any sort to a victim.

 

At the last CPR class I took they said that, though no one was required to personally give aid, they had to at least call for help or make certain that help had been called for. In other words, genegene's story of the person who didn't make the call is still technically accurate.

 

 

Not really. Kit Fox is right.

 

 

Good Samaritan laws in the United States and Canada are laws protecting from blame those who choose to aid others who are injured or ill. They are intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death.

 

In other countries (as well as the Canadian province of Quebec}, Good Samaritan laws describe a legal requirement for citizens to assist people in distress, unless doing so would put themselves in harm's way. Citizens are often required to, at minimum, call the local emergency number, unless doing so would be harmful, in which case, the authorities should be contacted when the harmful situation has been removed.

 

Such laws currently exist in countries such as Italy, Japan, France, Belgium, Andorra, and Spain. In other words, it depends on where you live. I suppose there might be some places in the United States where you are required to call for assistance, but generally not.

 

Of course, just because you don't have to, doesn't mean you shouldn't. While there may be no legal duty to call, you may have an ethical duty to do so.

Edited May 6, 2007 by Snake & Rooster

[+flask]

i saw an online forum elsewhere in which they are discussing this case. the deceased was called both whiner and wimp.

[+Redcap the Druid]

I graduated from the 28-day BOSS course in 1990 and this story didn't surprise me. This gentleman died during the "impact" stage - three days of intense hiking with no food and minimal water. During my stay the instructors were very concerned when we couldn't locate water. Several students began vomiting (which is quite painful when dehydrated with an empty stomach), babbling and hallucinating.

 

I recall that the waivers were extensive and that I was required to sign several before the course commenced. Along the way, while starving and dying of thirst, we would catch counselors eating trail mix and slurping water which made us consider some dangerous thoughts. When you are dying you learn to justify anything to stay alive. Too bad this man gave his life while a counselor watched with water in his pack, a kind action could have made this a life-changing trip rather than a life-ending one.

 

Sad story.

[+TrailGators]

Though the details of Good Samaritan laws in various jurisdictions vary, some features are common: General guidelines: Unless a caretaker relationship (such as a parent-child or doctor-patient relationship) exists prior to the illness or injury, or the "Good Samaritan" is responsible for the existence of the illness or injury, no person is required to give aid of any sort to a victim.

At the last CPR class I took they said that, though no one was required to personally give aid, they had to at least call for help or make certain that help had been called for. In other words, genegene's story of the person who didn't make the call is still technically accurate.

Not really. Kit Fox is right. Good Samaritan laws in the United States and Canada are laws protecting from blame those who choose to aid others who are injured or ill. They are intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death.

I understand Good Samaritan laws are there to remove liability from someone that is a Good Samaritan. I can also see how the intent of the law makes sense to let people off the hook for not wanting to get hurt by helping (not rescuing a drowning victim). But a guide who refuses to give someone a drink of water when they are showing the final fatal symptoms of dehydration is the exact opposite of a Good Samaritan. It still seems like an easy case for a prosecutor to me. Edited May 8, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Snake & Rooster]

I understand Good Samaritan laws are there to remove liability from someone that is a Good Samaritan. I can also see how the intent of the law makes sense to let people off the hook for not wanting to get hurt by helping (not rescuing a drowning victim). But a guide who refuses to give someone a drink of water when they are showing the final fatal symptoms of dehydration is the exact opposite of a Good Samaritan. It still seems like an easy case for a prosecutor to me.

 

 

Actually, I agree. I don't see this as a case where Good Samaritan laws apply. There was a business relationship between the guide and the hiker. The hiker essentially "hired" the guide. The guide is not simply a passerby that is refusing to get involved by calling for assistance and I think that there is some reasonable expectation of care implied, in spite of an waiver that is signed. Was the guide prosecuted?

[+TrailGators]

I understand Good Samaritan laws are there to remove liability from someone that is a Good Samaritan. I can also see how the intent of the law makes sense to let people off the hook for not wanting to get hurt by helping (not rescuing a drowning victim). But a guide who refuses to give someone a drink of water when they are showing the final fatal symptoms of dehydration is the exact opposite of a Good Samaritan. It still seems like an easy case for a prosecutor to me.

Actually, I agree. I don't see this as a case where Good Samaritan laws apply. There was a business relationship between the guide and the hiker. The hiker essentially "hired" the guide. The guide is not simply a passerby that is refusing to get involved by calling for assistance and I think that there is some reasonable expectation of care implied, in spite of an waiver that is signed. Was the guide prosecuted?

 

 

Good point. I was thinking later that if there if the guide gets off the hook, then Dr. Kavorkian should open up a desert hiking business. "Sign the paper and follow me...."

[+TotemLake]

 

I have no doubt that the release of liability that the students signed is iron clad. Maybe if they can prove the staff was not properly trained to recognize when a student was medically at risk they'll have a chance.

They are never iron clad. The company can be found culpable as they are ultimately responsible for their clients being alive at the end of the trail.

 

There was a radio station in California last year that got shut down even though they had "iron clad" releases of liability signed by the contestants. The winner died of taking too much water for a game console.

[+Renegade Knight]

 

I have no doubt that the release of liability that the students signed is iron clad. Maybe if they can prove the staff was not properly trained to recognize when a student was medically at risk they'll have a chance.

They are never iron clad. The company can be found culpable as they are ultimately responsible for their clients being alive at the end of the trail....

 

My understanding is that you can waive a lot of responsiblity with these agreements. However gross negligence isn't one of them. You still have to be somewhat competant (and I'm not saying one way or the other in this case) or you can lose a lawsuit.

 

The waiver is good for a lot of minor junk that a sue happy society would like to sue for.

[+Miragee]

I used to take people for horseback rides through the incredible scenery near Kanab, UT. I had them sign a waiver that had all sorts of legal-sounding language. I knew it wouldn't hold up in court if someone really wanted to sue if they fell off a horse and got injured, but I hoped it would help a little bit. Fortunately, I never had any bad "wrecks."

[+thedeadpirate]

Actually, I agree. I don't see this as a case where Good Samaritan laws apply. There was a business relationship between the guide and the hiker. The hiker essentially "hired" the guide. The guide is not simply a passerby that is refusing to get involved by calling for assistance and I think that there is some reasonable expectation of care implied, in spite of an waiver that is signed. Was the guide prosecuted?

 

If you wanted to just take your chances and see how much of a man you are, you could just have someone drop you off in the middle of the desert with no food, no water, and no survival tools and see if you could make it out.

 

You hire a guide because they know the area and hopefully to watch out for you. ESPECIALLY in a situation like this, where the goal is to see how far you can push your limts, you want someone properly trained to let you push those limits but bail you out when you exceed them.

 

If not, just drop 'em off in the middle of the desert. If you make it out, you've won. If not, you're no worse off than this poor guy.

[+TotemLake]

 

I have no doubt that the release of liability that the students signed is iron clad. Maybe if they can prove the staff was not properly trained to recognize when a student was medically at risk they'll have a chance.

They are never iron clad. The company can be found culpable as they are ultimately responsible for their clients being alive at the end of the trail....

 

My understanding is that you can waive a lot of responsiblity with these agreements. However gross negligence isn't one of them. You still have to be somewhat competant (and I'm not saying one way or the other in this case) or you can lose a lawsuit.

 

The waiver is good for a lot of minor junk that a sue happy society would like to sue for.

Get a good enough attorney to fight your case and that paper the waiver is printed on is pretty useless. Negligence is much easier to prove than to disprove.

 

The catch phrase is: You can't catch everything. You can't do it by paper and you can't do it by experts of the field. There will always be an exception that negates the expertise and the legalese.