Money Moral Dilemma: Would you replace the shoes?

oldnthrifty

Peter should not buy the shoes......Claire should buy her own shoes and give the reciept to her employer.

Claire obviously never carried out a risk assessment when she put her shoes on in the morning.

Claires journey was a journey to work, so she could claim that her employer should have provided adequate safety footware.

Claire should have thrown her other shoe next to the shoe she lost, if someone finds them at least they will have found a pair.

Peter should sue the railway for damages.....I mean how was he to know the train would actualy leave on time.

Claire might be an MP (lol) so she would claim for Two pairs of shoes on expenses and also another house to keep them in.

Oh well, i had best get another drink.

steve6375

I would step out of the tube carriage and onto the platform and ask her to come with me to find someone to fish her shoe from the line. If she objected then the tube would leave with her in it! If she stepped out then we could go to sort it out. Her choice!

lardaholics_anonymous

Not a chance. Furious? Demands? I don't respond well to rude people, so unless she is nice about it, she is hobbling to work. If she is nasty, she is also getting sarcastic comments to go with her lost shoe. Harsh, but fair.

Pellyman

NO. Claire's attitude is all wrong - "furious and demanding"?

As politely as possible Peter should explain that whilst he sympathises he can not accept responsibility. Ideally he should offer to wait, with Claire, until the train has left the station and then seek help to recover the shoe from a member of the Underground staff. That shouldn't be impossible to achieve.

If she persists with her original attitude he should offer his name and address and invite her to take legal action if she continues to feel strongly about it. If he maintains his explanation, that he himself was being pushed, it is surely unlikely Claire would be advised to pursue the matter through the Courts.

dronid

It's awkward isn't it? Mind you if anyone demanded replacement shoes from me because theirs 'fell off' possibly due to me wanting to get on transport (and I can't really imagine how it could happen if I could still get on the train) then it could've been done by anyone - which implies that it was the fault of the loose shoe person. Of course it would never happen to me as I wouldn't allow the train to leave the station with someone in that predicament!

If anyone demanded I replace their lost shoe at their destination - well
a) as I've said, it wouldn't be my fault so, no! (though if they were pleasant/distressed - not demanding - chivalry might kick in anyway)
b)I would get off at the next stop - Why stand next to someone moaning at me under those circumstances and, unless they want to go to the next stop, they're unlikely to get off themselves.

Really though. Be careful and considerate and it won't happen. Chivalry and pleasantness are not dead. Stop the doors closing. Help the person out.

Oh yes, I live in London and know a lot of people who'll help out!

dave2

scottrobbo71 wrote: »

Are travellers on the London Underground not governed by the same rules as everyone else?... Why should people act differently because they are on the underground?... You must all be very special people :T

Expected behaviour varies to some degree from place to place depending on circumstance. Underground is extremely busy and not exactly perfectly designed. It's not special "because it's the Underground" but rather because of the conditions. E.g. everyone stands to one side on the escalators to allow people in a hurry to rush past and it's very rude if you don't - same in many countries' undergrounds, but definitely not the same when in Next or whatever!

More relevant to this dilemma perhaps is that the trains move at set times whether everyone who wants on is on or not - so social rules are different than at a train station where the trains waits for everyone. Also very few transport stations are as busy as the U.

Hence a bit of barging is a social norm on the U even though the exact same people would not accept it anywhere else.

Personally I'd probably have been keen to help Claire out (not sure if I'd be buying a shoe, see how it goes at the time) although the "furious" and "demanding" is most off-putting.

WEE_3

Slightly different scenario but I helped a lady with a pram off a train once and realised that in the process my cardigan that had been wrapped around my waist had fallen down beside the train. Luckily for me the lady's husband stretched down and retrieved it but had he not I wouldn't have expected the lady to buy me another cardigan even if the lady had asked for my help. It was my stupid fault for not making sure it was on properly.

I wouldn't pay for new shoes or expect someone to pay.

tallgirld

NO WAY!! She's taking the mick.
I would apologise and would quite happily find a member of staff to see if the shoe could be retrieved. I bet she had big feet!!!!

superfran_uk

Talent wrote: »

You could be a gentleman (or a laydee) and get off with her.

:rotfl:Not very gentlemanly! Edit - should learn to read the replies first...

I would probably run away and deny all knowledge if I'm very honest - I can't afford new shoes for myself, let alone some woman that got in the way and was wearing shoes that slip off accidentally...Although I also try not to tread on other people's feet :P

If it happened to me I'd probably be really upset though, imagine having to get on a train with no shoes!

pennypinchUK

Hmm, I've seen some things on the Tube - people collapsing from the heat, more scuffles breaking out than I can count, leery drunks, etc. but most of all people just cocoon themselves in to their own world. I suspect, at least from my experience, most people who were accused of losing a woman's shoe on the Tube would just grunt and walk away. But I'd like to think I'd at least talk to the woman and suggest a way for her to retrieve her shoe. But buy her a new pair? No.