Shoe related lawsuits?

[onyourtoes]

I've always wondered why I've never heard of shoe manufacturers getting sued over their products. Heels and platforms must certainly cause their share of injuries and accidents.

Of course these days we sue the maker, the shoe store, the company that delivered them to the store, all the materials suppliers, and anybody else who is handy. I'm surprised there aren't at least warnings posted in shoe stores or even on the products themselves.

PRODUCT WARNINGS

FAILURE TO FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS CAN LEAD TO SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH.

WARNING: Some authorities have determined that continued wearing of high heels can lead to serious health consequences, including corns, calluses, pump bumps, knee and joint problems, hammer toe, back strain, and other types of injuries.

DO NOT wear these shoes for extended periods of walking or standing. They are NOT suitable for running or dancing, and must NEVER be worn while driving, climbing or descending stairs or ladders, swimming, or while undergoing open heart surgery.

You may feel OCCASIONAL DISCOMFORT, this is normal and part of the design, however some health authorities have determined that this discomfort may affect your mental state. Symptoms include being cross with friends and relatives, throwing things at your employer, and bursting into tears over silly little things.

Some people find high heels prevent them from walking fast. Plan ahead, don't rush, leave early so you can arrive at your destination safely and on time.

SANDALS are open shoes and expose your feet to more hazards than closed shoes. Use particular care during rainy and cold weather and avoid places such as steel refineries and gravel parking lots. Do not attempt to stamp out a fire while wearing sandals.

If your shoes are equipped with PLATFORM SOLES, the hazards are greater. Do not wear on rough or uneven ground or during earthquakes. You may also notice the ground appears to be farther away and other people look shorter. This is because your height is temporarily increased by the extra separation of your feet from the ground. This height increase is temporary and will cease when you remove the shoes.

[shyguy]

Hmmm you could be onto something there. Maybe that disclaimer should be on a label inside the box, with a note outside saying you agree to it by the action of opening the box or something.

[Heelfan]

Funnily enough, I've often had the same fear, but I've never brought it up for discussion anywhere in case what started as a joke could end up by being latched on to and taken seriously by all the compensation claims lawyers and litigators, so that we suddenly find ourselves moping in a non high heel society where stiletytos etc. are completely banished. So the message is: - "SSshhhhhhhhhhhh"! Cheerfully yours, Heelfan

[Amanda]

I think if you're silly enough to wear heels then surely one doesn't have a leg to stand on Legally. I often did wonder if I would be sued for damaging a floor before. I wonder if anyone did yet?.

[Histiletto]

Oh Great! Another reason to tie up our already overburdened court system when people unintentionally cause damage in the normal course of their activity or when people want to take advantage of someone, who walked in stiletto heels over their newly surfaced floor. I can see the headlines now: "Male Heeler Appears In Court For Damaging Property"

[JNR]

It is entirely possible that a person could (and would) be sued for damaging flooring with their high heels. After all, there is an element of "responsibility" for exercising good judgement "at all times" when interacting with the general public. Another point to ponder!

[RPMindy]

i was shopping for shoes with my wife the other day... and in the store.. a sign said... above the high heel section... children should not try these shoes without adult supervision.. and in fine print.. we're not responsible for any injury from minors trying these shoes without supervision. and the heels were about 4 inch tall.. some had platforms about an inch thick. RPM

[Puffer]

It is entirely possible that a person could (and would) be sued for damaging flooring with their high heels. After all, there is an element of "responsibility" for exercising good judgement "at all times" when interacting with the general public. Another point to ponder!

Sued, yes, quite possibly (especially in a litigious environment such as the US!). But obtaining judgment and anything more than nominal damages is another matter. If the owner/occupier of premises with 'sensitive' flooring wishes to avoid it being damaged, it is up to him to remove that possibility by excluding heel-wearing (or other damaging activity), usually by displaying a specific prohibition notice. If there is no ban and someone has an invitation (licence) to enter the premises (either implied, where they are open to the general public, or express, as with a private house) and does so, he or she owes only a modest duty of care to the owner regarding the premises and contents generally. The invitee who then causes damage would only be in real danger of being sued if his or her behaviour was markedly careless or otherwise unreasonable or reckless.

So, if high heels are a generally accepted item of dress (as they are, at least for women) and have not been banned from particular premises by a notice, then their known propensity to cause damage is impliedly accepted by the owner/occupier. So, any damage caused by such an invitee heel-wearer behaving reasonably can scarcely be the subject of a lawsuit. But stamping up and down on the carpet or deliberately scratching a parquet floor, for example, is unreasonable and probably actionable in negligence or nuisance.

I do wonder what the position might be in, for example, a 'gentlemen's club' (where entry is forbidden to women) and a stiletto-clad man walked in and damaged a floor. If there was no prohibition notice and he was in principle an invitee, would it be unreasonable of him to walk on the floor when he knew or should have known of at least a possibility of damage resulting? (There are 25 marks for answering this question.)

No, I'm not a lawyer (although much of my work is involved with legal issues) so I don't suggest the above is a totally definitive analysis - but that is my view of the situation, at least under English law.

[JNR]

A few months ago there was a newly registered female member that posted a comment about the time she and her husband went to a social gathering at the house of a person they didn't think much of. As a way of showing their "disdain" for this couple, the female member recited how she wore pumps with metal heels and proceeded to damage the wooden floor in the house while they were there. Now, what they did, in my opinion, is wanton destruction of personal property. And, if it were my house, I would take that couple to court and sue the shit out of them for the cost of making repairs to the floor. And, should the court allow, I would make it so costly to them for their behavior that they would think several hundred times before they ever did something like that again. In fact, if I couldn’t receive satisfaction through civil court, I would explore possible criminal charges against them. There is absolutely no excuse for this type of behavior and to purposely destroy someone’s personal property just to make the point that you don’t like them, is unforgivable. Come to think of it, I don't belive that person has posted since.