observer Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Why is it nowadays - it's always someone else's fault - why don't folk take personal liabilitity for the outcomes of their own decisions/actions? There was a woman on the news the other night, who's six inch heel broke - now she wants to sue the shoemaker - but if you walk round in absurd footwear, surely it's an accident waiting to happen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted July 12, 2008 Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 Because they can, and their is always a sleasebag lawyer waiting to take their case, and the courts do not apply common sense anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted July 12, 2008 Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 I hear what you're saying about the blame culture and agree with you that there's not enough taking responsibility for ones own problems out there. But in this case, she was sold an item (shoes) as being fit for purpose (walking in), they proved to be unfit (heel broke) and she suffered an injury. Maybe sometimes, a "blame culture" is what's needed to reduce the amount of shoddy product we get fobbed of with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 I would suggest that balancing on a six inch heel, in the name of vanity is asking for trouble; perhaps folk need to do their own risk assessments?! But the list is no doubt endless: riding bikes without lights at night; J-walking across roads in front of traffic etc etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted July 12, 2008 Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 Looks like closer to a 3 or 4 inch heel from the pictures to me. Millions of women wear similar heels every day and every night, nothing unusual or high risk about them. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1033255/Woman-wins-7-000-breaking-ankle-high-heel-snapped.html .....apart from the fact that these were faulty, broke, and left the wearer needing surgery to put pins in her ankle. ?7,200 sounds a bit on the low side for that kind of loss, if you ask me. Possibly would have been higher if she hadn't been a student and there'd been more of a loss of earnings claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 A load of Chinese cobblers?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted July 12, 2008 Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 Almost certainly manufactured abroad, and down to the lowest possible price - nobody sells a quality pair of shoes for ?35. But that doesn't absolve the retailer of their responsibility to provide a safe product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 Guess he'll toe the line from now on?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted July 12, 2008 Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 Oh Obs..... you're such a heel! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted July 12, 2008 Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 he's no sole either. As for "not fit for purpose", it depends whether she was wearing them falling in and out of the pubs in Bridge St. I don't recall anyone from yesteryear sueing the council for getting their heel stuck and it breaking off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 Cheap shoes don't "last". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted July 12, 2008 Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 I would suggest that balancing on a six inch heel, in the name of vanity is asking for trouble; perhaps folk need to do their own risk assessments?! But the list is no doubt endless: riding bikes without lights at night; J-walking across roads in front of traffic etc etc. Ah risk assessments. There's a get out clause now widely used by employers to get out of their responsibilities. "did you carry out a risk assessment before that machine took your leg off? No? Well sorry according to your contract if you don't follow procedure (including filling out a risk assessment) we, as your employer, cannot be held responsible for the failure of our machinery to leave you as a biped". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted July 12, 2008 Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 But I bet the employee would use the same trick to win their case too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2008 Even under elf and safety law; both employer AND employee have a responsibility to take reasonable responsibilities. But you may not think so, given a 70year old school caretaker has just won a tribuneral, having fell off a 6ft laddder "he hadn't been trained to use"!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdrianR Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 Speakign as one working in this field, soem valid points have been made i.e. the broke and caused substantial damage. They broke within hours of being bought. Bang to rights if you ask me and rightly so. As for the ladders case, the question always is for an employer to make sure that the work is as safe as possible and trainign is fundamental to that regardless of the work undertaken. Risk Assessments are only valid if done well, accurately and are followed to the tee. Any gaps and the employer gets hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 I guess the mistake by the shop selling the shoes was that they didn't check her mass and centre of gravity before making the sale. As I recall back in the 60s, women used to wear stiletto heels....not many or any, legal claims then......except for damage to flooring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.