Can a store be sued for selling dangerous shoes

ThumbRemote

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

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.

Unless you have multiple logins, the questions weren't specifically aimed at you.

However, you've not answered question 1. I wasn't asking about whether they felt this was the case thia time. It was a general question: "Do you think it is acceptable for a retailer to make claims about goods that are not true?"

You are attempting to put restrictions on the retailers claims, that they do not add themselves. "Good for light exercise and sports" is their claim. Light exercise can reasonably include going for a brisk walk outside. Also, see the post by browneyedbazzi earlier which expands on the reasonable use.

browneyedbazzi

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

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.

Even if the description of the shoe was all important - which is isn't given the provisions in product safety legislation for 'reasonably foreseeable use' which you conveniently ignore - is a walk through the park or around town not light exercise? If you asked a group of people what they would consider 'light exercise' I expect walking would be on that list (probably higher up than aerobics which would be considered strenuous exercise to many). To claim that only exercise carried out indoors in a gym on a proper floor is 'light exercise' is pretty absurd.

powerful_Rogue

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Unless you have multiple logins, the questions weren't specifically aimed at you.

However, you've not answered question 1. I wasn't asking about whether they felt this was the case thia time. It was a general question: "Do you think it is acceptable for a retailer to make claims about goods that are not true?"

You are attempting to put restrictions on the retailers claims, that they do not add themselves. "Good for light exercise and sports" is their claim. Light exercise can reasonably include going for a brisk walk outside. Also, see the post by browneyedbazzi earlier which expands on the reasonable use.

As this is a discussion forum I thought anyone could pick up points and comment.

"Do you think it is acceptable for a retailer to make claims about goods that are not true?"

Of course not, but I cant see the retailer has done that in this case.

People slip over on wet and dry surfaces all the time. Im presuming if the OP slipped over in Tesco on a wet floor, she would be suing Tesco because of the wet floor and not Asda because of the shoes.

I wear Magnums to work as they form part of my PPE. They have slip resistant soles which conform to ISO 13287:2012. The shoes the OP purchased did not state they were slip resistant.

Anyway, were not going to see eye to eye or agree on anything.

OP - Sue them, take Walmart to court and lets see what the judge decides. Keep us updated though.

DaveTheMus

Mrs_Wilson wrote: »

ThumbRemote,


Thank you so much, a straight answer to straight question...you're a star!:beer:

What you mean is....thanks for the exact answer I've been looking for.......it might have taken 40 odd posts but now I'm totally justified in starting legal proceedings against a supermarket because I slipped in pair of 6 month old trainers, trainers that I had no issue with until that point.........

Prothet_of_Doom

ThumbRemote wrote: »

But personally, I think if retailers falsely advertise products or sell dangerous goods, it should cost them dearly.

The cost to the NHS of slips and trips is massive, and one accepted improvement for old people is to wear trainers, with a flat sole, (as a heel can catch). It is this reason alone why I think ASDA should be sued. They have a duty of care that goes beyond the till.

detox1

I bought some mens trainers from asda well before 2013, circa 2011, with the same problem. In decades of shoe buying, they are the only clearly unsafe shoes I've ever come across, so I'm suprised they got past any safety testing. The problem appears to be, the soles have no rubber, it's like a shiny plastic, and are far too rigid, so the foot can't bend.

They are unsafe on dry grass, on any type of wet or slightly wet surface, on dry supermarket/mall floor tiles, (even went over in asda), on dry lino. Not only is there no grip, there is no flexibility in the sole, it's flat to the floor all the time, so one second you're walking, the next you're on your back. I did some serious damage to my arm with these on, it's like walking on ice at times, and takes you by surprise like hitting black ice.

£6-£8 or not, it's a dangerous design, and I'm suprised they haven't been pulled from sale yet, I tried a slightly different pair last year, different tread pattern, different sole material, and it had the same problem.

If you actually break the sole with force (not that difficult, but it will leak afterwards), it helps the grip, because they shoe base is no longer completely flat, and can move with the balls of the feet, but the material it's made of it still useless gripwise.

They are ok on carpets, that's about all.

As for why would anyone with a brain buy £8 shoes, you could turn that around and say why would anyone with a brain pay £100 for branded ones that cost a similar amount to manufacture. £8 or £100, you don't expect a pair of shoes of any kind to be slippy on anything other than ice.

Trainers are general purpose footwear, worn by billions as day to day shoes, not just for gyms/football pitches (which they'd would be even more unsafe in).

I did consider taking them back, but I'd thrown the receipt, and didn't expect the staff to take my concerns seriously (ie feed it up the chain). As people still appear to be getting hurt, perhaps I should have.

Twisted_Cherry

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?

I think the poster below has answered the question for you!

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

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.

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Unless you have multiple logins, the questions weren't specifically aimed at you.

However, you've not answered question 1. I wasn't asking about whether they felt this was the case thia time. It was a general question: "Do you think it is acceptable for a retailer to make claims about goods that are not true?"

I think the public should take some responsibility for there actions, and stop looking to blame any Tom, !!!!!! or Harry!

Well ok then let's all buy a pair of shoes and go around slipping on the floor, then sue the shoe manufacture! Or better still let's all slip on un-gritted roads / pavements and sue the local council, or perhaps in the local greasy take-away where the floors are always slippy... or even the local post office and completely ignore the sign on the door that says 'Warning Floor May Be Wet' :eek:
It's common sense, obviously some people can't see that and prefer to be petty and pathetic!

Now I'm off to walk the dog, better be careful it's raining outside, don't want to slip!

WTFH

Did anyone see the Nigel Slater & Adam Henson program where they compared a basic/value/cheap lasagne with a middle of the range one and a high end one?

Strangely enough, the basic one (costing about 1/4 of the price) didn't taste as good as the high end one.
If someone bought the basic one, then decided to sue the supermarket because it wasn't as good as the high end one, would that be fully supported on here? I mean, using the same argument as this thread there are many people who would claim that it should taste every bit as good.

Sorry, but you pays your money and you takes your pick. If you want cheap, buy cheap. If you want quality, pay for quality.

Twisted_Cherry

WTFH wrote: »

Sorry, but you pays your money and you takes your pick. If you want cheap, buy cheap. If you want quality, pay for quality.

Well said! :T

Twisted_Cherry

marleyboy wrote: »

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.

I did that last year... but it was my own fault, I was to busy looking in the chemist window, still a kind man came to my rescue! Maybe I could sue the chemist for having some an beautiful intriguing window display, thus I was not concentrating on the pavement or my feet!