Can a store be sued for selling dangerous shoes

Twisted_Cherry

zaax wrote: »

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

Actually the gym did admit they had the wrong kind of flooring down, and several people had, had accidents... they were also very keen to check on this person for the next few days, and even took photos or the injuries. The person in question I suppose couldn't be bothered taking legal action!

marleyboy

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?

Would that not depend on circumstance?

If I buy a shockproof watch and drop it from a skyrise, as a result it shatters, the shrapnel of which embeds itself into a pedestrians eye. Could I claim innocence on the grounds that the watch was advertised as shockproof, so I did not expect it would shatter causing a passer by to be injured by "not the watch", but a piece of it?

ThumbRemote

WTFH wrote: »

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.

Terrible analogy. If the cheaper lasagne was of such poor quality that it caused some people who ate it to become ill, that would be a better analogy. And of course, in that case the retailer would deserve everything they got for selling dangerous goods.

DaveTheMus

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Terrible analogy. If the cheaper lasagne was of such poor quality that it caused some people who ate it to become ill, that would be a better analogy. And of course, in that case the retailer would deserve everything they got for selling dangerous goods.

What about if a person buys the cheapest budget tyre's for their vehicle and another buys the best tyre's going.......

they both drive along the same wet road.....

the guy with cheap tyre's loses control, has an accident.....

the guy with the expensive tyre's drives on, no incident......

Would the guy who bought the cheap tyre's be able to sue the manufacturer?

Would the guy who bought the cheap tyre's be wrong in thinking that even though they are the cheapest available, they should be of equal quality to the best premium tyre's available?

Should the driver with the cheapest tyre's have tailored his driving based on the combination of the driving conditions and the assumed limitations of budget tyre's?

Should the OP have tailored her walking based on the same combination of conditions and assumed limitations of budget trainers?

frugal_mike

Tyres (no matter how cheap they are) should be able to handle legal driving. If both cars were driving legally then the cheap types should have coped. Perhaps if the weather was exceptionally bad this would become less true.

I would expect cheap tyres to wear out in less miles rather than be more likely to cause a crash.

Hintza

frugal_mike wrote: »

I would expect cheap tyres to wear out in less miles rather than be more likely to cause a crash.

Please explain your reasoning for this sweeping statement?

frugal_mike

Hintza wrote: »

Please explain your reasoning for this sweeping statement?

Well you didn't state which part you wanted explanation on but I explained in the previous post. I would expect all tyres to be able to cope with legal driving safely.

My sweeping comment was in response to a general question about cheap tyres vs expensive tyres. There were no specifics to comment on. I never said it was absolutely true in all cases though, and I did make some assumptions to keep the post brief. For example I assumed the cars were being driven on a road rather than a race track, and that the cars were similar with the same wheel sizes to rule out that as the reason for the price difference.

But I didnt think others would want to read all that.

ThumbRemote

DaveTheMus wrote: »

What about if a person buys the cheapest budget tyre's for their vehicle and another buys the best tyre's going.......

they both drive along the same wet road.....

the guy with cheap tyre's loses control, has an accident.....

the guy with the expensive tyre's drives on, no incident......

Would the guy who bought the cheap tyre's be able to sue the manufacturer?

Would the guy who bought the cheap tyre's be wrong in thinking that even though they are the cheapest available, they should be of equal quality to the best premium tyre's available?

Should the driver with the cheapest tyre's have tailored his driving based on the combination of the driving conditions and the assumed limitations of budget tyre's?

Should the OP have tailored her walking based on the same combination of conditions and assumed limitations of budget trainers?

That is a far better analogy. What it draws attention to is that there is a minimum acceptable standard. A set of tyres that slip at low speed in any wet conditionswill obviously be below the minimum.

The Sale of Goods Act defines it as "fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied"

Based on that, there are two questions a court would have to decide in any personal injury case, namely were the shoes below the minimum standard, and were Asda negligent in continuing to sell the shoes?

Since the shoes do not appear suitable for many forms of exercise, despite Asda's claims, I think they were below the minimum. And since many other people appear to have similar problems with them slipping, as per their online reviews, I'd argue that they were negligent in continuing to sell them.

However, I appreciate that these two questions are both totally subjective, and other people or a judge may decide otherwise.

societys_child

ThumbRemote wrote: »

"Good for light exercise and sports" is their claim. Light exercise can reasonably include going for a brisk walk outside.

You're quite right, all shoes should come with a 50 page instruction booklet covering all weather conditions, substrate walking surfaces, length of stride etc etc etc, in fact it should cover all eventualities . . . jeez

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

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

:rotfl:

Hintza

ThumbRemote wrote: »

A set of tyres that slip at low speed in any wet conditions will obviously be below the minimum.

Now this is just plain wrong. ALL tyres in the UK have to meet a minimum standard.

For example a premium brand will stop a car at 70m whilst a car with a budget tyre is still travelling at 31mph and takes a further 14m to stop. Both tyres meet the minimum standard for use in the UK.