Can a store be sued for selling dangerous shoes

AndyBSG

Mrs_Wilson wrote: »

My trainers were never purchased with any the thoughts of doing exercise. I wanted something a little more conformable for wearing in the garden during the summer months and also for wandering up to the local shops. When the incident occurred the sun was out and it had not been raining for hours.

Thank you.

So you were not training in your trainers but were wearing them for something different to their intended purpose and you want to sure the store because of that...

Good luck on that front!

ThumbRemote

AndyBSG wrote: »

So you were not training in your trainers but were wearing them for something different to their intended purpose and you want to sure the store because of that...

Good luck on that front!

I suggest you read through the thread - that point has been covered more than once.

powerful_Rogue

closed wrote: »

Training shoes can only be used for training now, no walking allowed :rotfl: , strangely I've never seen that warning on the label.

relatively simple query about some crap shoes, and everyone is arguing about tyres.

brains are funny things.

Different shoes for different functions.

Walking shoes/boots for walking

Running shoes for running - which then breaks down to what kind of running you do. I have running shoes for road running and trail shoes for off-road running.

Training shoes/Plimsoles - Usually used for indoor sports

Yes, shoes can be used for different purposes, but they are best used for what they are advertised as.

If I use my road running shoes off road, I then slide all over the place on the grass/mud. Thats why I have trail running shoes, however they are not designed to be used on road due to the different grips.

powerful_Rogue

WTFH wrote: »

Simple - as I explained. One set slides 20% futher than another set. The difference between the two is 20%.
At 30mph, that would be 14 metres difference (roughly 46 feet), or to use FFF system "longer than a double decker bus"

Noticed he decided to ignore your reply!

WTFH

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Noticed he decided to ignore your reply!

The first time he asked me to repeat myself because he couldn't understand 20%. This time either he ignored me, or he's gone to check that my Furlong/Firkin/Fortnight conversion was correct.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

BoP shall now enumerate for the hard of reading.

OP bought a nice cheap tacky pair of trainers from a well known supermarket retailer. OP slipped and split their knackers. OP wants to sue said retailer for giving them dangerous goods.

A lot of other people in the parish have given their considered advice on this matter, and it is quite an entertaining read, if you have half an hour or so to spare, OP has, in a way, not liked all the answers they have been given, and there is a lot of conjecture.

BoP will now give his considered advice to OP

Yes, you can sue said retailer for selling you dangerous goods, and good luck with your case. I will follow this gladly in the law reports of my national newspaper in months to come. Though, before you get a rush of blood to the head, I doubt very much, a solicitor will be willing to take up your cause, without a substantial financial endownment.

Mrs_Wilson

WTFH wrote: »

Stop arguing with ThumbRemote by presenting facts - that's not allowed.
Remember: all businesses are evil and should really just give consumers money at all times.

Here's a few facts I've found out in this thread:
1. The shoes may meet legal requirements for manufacture, but they make no claims or promises to the level of grip they will provide.
2. They were bought "recently" but were worn during the summer months. That means they are 6+ months old.
3. Until two days ago they had never had any grip problems. 6+ months of wearing, no issue with grip.
4. Suddenly they lost all grip after 6+ months of use and now they are "dangerous".
5. The OP doesn't want a refund of the £8 paid, but wants to sue, because it took them 6+ months to discover that an £8 pair of "trainers" aren't that good.

:rotfl:
It's true they are 6 month old trainers but I must point out, not worn every day for 6 months. Summer months = typically dryer days when the trainers were worn. "Dryer" means very little precipitation. You are right, at the time no grip issues were observed.
Some months later trainers were pulled out of the cupboard and put on. It had been raining approximately 5hours before I went out to my corner shop. On that day it was dry and sunny with a few shallow puddles of rain water on the pavement - see picture.
http://www.tiikoni.com/tis/view/?id=36cad1b
Although this is not the actual scene of the incident, nor is the surface shown Tarmac. However, it will give you some idea of what a pavement looks like as it dries out:rotfl:
You can also see there are areas of water, this would make the sole of a shoe understandably moist. The combination of water and the hard Asda sole = a potential for slipping:eek:

Thank you