Can a store be sued for selling dangerous shoes

DaveTheMus

Mrs_Wilson wrote: »

My point is....if there was NO warning as to the floor being slippery when wet who would be liable then? Have you ever seen a pair of trainers that are clearly marked "Slippery when Wet"? Of course you have not ,because training shoes are designed to offer more grip than a conventional shoe .....THAT'S WHY THEY ARE "TRAINERS!"

We're you using these training shoes for actual training? If not then you were not using them for the purpose they were actually designed for.

brendon

Mrs_Wilson wrote: »

My point is....if there was NO warning as to the floor being slippery when wet who would be liable then? Have you ever seen a pair of trainers that are clearly marked "Slippery when Wet"? Of course you have not ,because training shoes are designed to offer more grip than a conventional shoe .....THAT'S WHY THEY ARE "TRAINERS!"

Why wouldn't you be liable? You knew that they were slippery when wet but continued to expose yourself to the risk -- you said that in your original post. Training shoes are indeed designed to offer more grip -- but indoors or on dry surfaces. For good grip, it would need a completely flat bottom (more surface area in contact) -- which has the side effect of slippage on wet surfaces. Like a plimsol. (Or an F1 tire). As a trade-off, there are ridges in the bottom, but these actually give the shoe less grip. So the trainers are only suitable in dry or lightly-wet environments.

Mrs_Wilson

DaveTheMus wrote: »

We're you using these training shoes for actual training? If not then you were not using them for the purpose they were actually designed for.

I was just walking at the time of slip, not running. The surface was Tarmac.

Thank you

Mrs_Wilson

brendon wrote: »

Why wouldn't you be liable? You knew that they were slippery when wet but continued to expose yourself to the risk -- you said that in your original post. Training shoes are indeed designed to offer more grip -- but indoors or on dry surfaces. For good grip, it would need a completely flat bottom (more surface area in contact) -- which has the side effect of slippage on wet surfaces. Like a plimsol. (Or an F1 tire). As a trade-off, there are ridges in the bottom, but these actually give the shoe less grip. So the trainers are only suitable in dry or lightly-wet environments.

Had I known in advance that they were slippery it would have been foolish to wear them. After the event I decided to test them out on different surfaces where it soon became evident that they are very slippery. During the summer months there was little problem wearing them in the garden, obviously the conditions at the time were much drier too.

So if you bought a new car in the summer and you later found out (after an accident) the brakes where useless in wet conditions, would the onus be you as the consumer, or the manufacturer?

Thank you

mttylad

Was it the shoes or was it the tarmac that was slippery?


Hmm, you just went to 50:50....

jacques_chirac

You have still not told us how much they cost? This would help to differentiate between a basic shoe that looks like a trainer but makes no particular claims, or a technical show that you would expect to offer support, grip etc.

DaveTheMus

Mrs_Wilson wrote: »

I was just walking at the time of slip, not running. The surface was Tarmac.

Thank you

So you weren't using them for their designed purpose....

Brooker_Dave

Demand compensation!!

Mrs_Wilson

jacques_chirac wrote: »

You have still not told us how much they cost? This would help to differentiate between a basic shoe that looks like a trainer but makes no particular claims, or a technical show that you would expect to offer support, grip etc.

Sorry Jacques, I thought I had already replied to you earlier.

I have just to looked on their website and I am pleased to see that I am not the only one to experience problems with these shoes!
IMO the price has little relevance in this situation but I'm sure many of you will say "If you buy something that is so cheap, what do you expect!" What you have to bear in mind is, that I had no desire to run in them, or use them for the gym, I already own trainers several pairs of Nike trainers for jogging etc.

Surely, I would not be pushing the Asda training shoes to their limits by walking half a mile down the road to buy a newspaper?

They were advertised as: Sports Trainers

The shoes description reads:

"Get active with these great value Sports trainers. Good for light exercise and sports, these shoes have a modern look and are made from strong, durable materials."

http://direct.asda.com/george/mens-shoes-boots/mesh-panel-sports-trainers/G004054944,default,pd.html

Please read the customer reviews as it appears others are unhappy too.

Taking into account Asda (via their website and customer comments) knew of the concerns raised in 2013, should they either have withdrawn this product from the market, or made it clear to the consumers that these trainers were substandard and liable to cause injury?
In light of this ...Has Asda been negligent?

marleyboy

Its highly unlikely you could claim anything. It would be like me claiming from Timberland for tripping over a raised flagstone in my work boots.

Imagine the claim culture with High heeled shoes, should you be able to claim for having minor accidents walking over cattle grids or getting them caught in a crack on the road and screaming; "surely high heels should be made fat enough to avoid such perils."