Can a store be sued for selling dangerous shoes

Twisted_Cherry

Oh dear... where there is blame there is a claim!


Someone I know slipped in the gym changing rooms on a wet floor... went down like a sack of spuds, injuring and bruising several parts of his body and cracking one rib... he's not suing it was his own fault for not being more careful!

Prothet_of_Doom

mo786uk wrote: »

The problem will be proving they are unsafe somehow - expecially if there are no standards ro they comply with any standard but are unsafe for some other reason.

Not difficult to test the co-efficient of friction on a range of surfaces.

There may be no standard, but SOG requires that goods be fit for purpose.

ThumbRemote

Twisted_Cherry wrote: »

Oh dear... where there is blame there is a claim!

Someone I know slipped in the gym changing rooms on a wet floor... went down like a sack of spuds, injuring and bruising several parts of his body and cracking one rib... he's not suing it was his own fault for not being more careful!

Hardly relevant then is it?

zaax

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Oh dear... where there is blame there is a claim!

Someone I know slipped in the gym changing rooms on a wet floor... went down like a sack of spuds, injuring and bruising several parts of his body and cracking one rib... he's not suing it was his own fault for not being more careful!

As the gym put the wrong type of flooring down why shouldn't he?

browneyedbazzi

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.

ThumbRemote wrote: »

You seem rather focussed on the concept of misusing a pair of shoes.

Since 'training' is likely to involve more exertion, so a greater a likelihood of slips, and a greater variety of surfaces than just casual wear, it's hardly misuse to not be training in them.

Essentially you seem to be arguing that a pair of training shoes would be misued because the wearer stopped running and started walking.

Indeed Dave also seems to completely miss the point that a product needs to be safe for its intended use (what the producer says is for/has designed it to do) and reasonably foreseeable use.

I think walking to the shops is a reasonably foreseeable use for almost all shoes (with the exception of very 'dressy' shoes, very high heels and shoes designed specifically for use in particular sports like curling or cycling road shoes with cleats that are very difficult to walk in ).

WTFH

Years ago I remember trying shoes on before buying them, walking up and down, checking they fitted, checking they were comfortable, etc.
I also remember that if I fell over I picked myself up and got on with life.
No lawyer required.

Now we're turning into America. We want everything to be best quality but cost nothing and if it's not what we really wanted we'll have 1000x what we paid for it in compensation.

ThumbRemote

WTFH wrote: »

Now we're turning into America. We want everything to be best quality but cost nothing and if it's not what we really wanted we'll have 1000x what we paid for it in compensation.

What a load of rubbish. You completely ignore the two main issues:
1. Asda claiming the shoes are good for light exercise and sports, when they aren't
2. The hard sole on the shoes potentially being dangerous.

Of course, OP needs to demonstrate this is the case to a court to prove it. But personally, I think if retailers falsely advertise products or sell dangerous goods, it should cost them dearly.

Twisted_Cherry

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Hardly relevant then is it?

No it's not, it's a fact... too many people are all too keen and ready to sue for money over trivial things, usually caused by there own stupidity!

ThumbRemote

Twisted_Cherry wrote: »

No it's not, it's a fact... too many people are all too keen and ready to sue for money over trivial things, usually caused by there own stupidity!

Two simple questions for you:
1. Do you think it is acceptable for a retailer to make claims about goods that are not true?
2. Do you think it is acceptable for a retailer to sell products that can cause an unexpected danger when used?

powerful_Rogue

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Two simple questions for you:
1. Do you think it is acceptable for a retailer to make claims about goods that are not true?
2. Do you think it is acceptable for a retailer to sell products that can cause an unexpected danger when used?

1. Th retailer has not said that these shoes can be used on wet floors. Light exercise, aerobics inside? Sports, Considering you would use proper shoes for sports such as football, rugby etc, maybe something like netball, hockey - again played inside.

2. Not acceptable at all. However, I would class that as being something like an electrical device that overheats when being used potentially causing burns etc. The OP slipped on a wet floor. Plenty of people slip on wet and even dry floors - dosent mean the shoes are to blame.