Great column! It reminds me of a little known court case from the 19th century discussed by Joel Feinberg in his philosophical tome "Harm to Others (1984)." I am quoting from p. 193.

In an 1888 Massachusetts case (Rogers v. Elliot), the court, in a typical ruling, decided against the epilectic plaintiff, holding that "it is not a nuisance to ring a church bell merely because it throws a hypersensitive individual into convulsions.". . . The abnormally vulnerable person should be protected by the criminal and/or civil law, however, from deliberate and malicious attempts to seek him out, pursue and harrass him, and exploit his vulnerability for no respectable purpose. The properly mediated harm principle would surely warrant legal interference with Mr. Elliot if he pursued Mr. Rogers all over New England ringing bells at him.

Heavy stuff for a popular column, but I think Ms. Skenazy would enjoy reading Feinberg, and find other examples that pertain to her attempts to restore common sense to the question of acceptable and unacceptable levels of risk. I'm sure she will also identify with Feinberg's superbly dry wit!