Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you stand to the side of an escalator step (perhaps you are letting someone pass) there should be zero chance that your shoe or some other piece of clothing should be sucked into the machinery.
Let's rephrase this because the framing of these issues gets people worked up in a tizzy without understanding the entire context.
Kid gets injured on an escalator while wearing crocs, medical bills are expensive, they need help paying for them, so what to do? Call up a Plaintiff's lawyer.
Plaintiff's lawyer then figures out every party that could possible be at fault and does one of two things. He either:
(1) Sues every single entity that could be at fault, including safety inspectors, premises owners, shoe manufacturers, really anybody.
By doing this, he then sends a notice of claim to each entity which then forwards that information to their liability insurer.
Now we have 1 Plaintiff and 4 or 5 Defendant insureds working out who is going to pay how much.
Plaintiff gets his medical bills paid and everybody moves on.
(2) Sues the party most responsible, that party then determines every other party at fault and brings them into the action as non parties at fault, then either files its own claim against them, or waits for the Plaintiff to do it.
Number 1 is more efficient if you have cooperative Defendant insureds. Number 2 is better when the parties are behaving adversarially.
Kid gets his bills paid, everybody is fine, insurance indemnified the defendants and paid for the damages. Insurers only paid what was necessary, the damages claimed at the outset are the entry point of the bargaining position. The whole point of bringing the shoe manufacturer into this is to get some insurers involved. Once you have them all involved, they can sweat the small stuff, the point is the kids medical bills got paid.
The problem is the starting premise is the very issue. "Something happened to me and I can't pay for medical bills, so I should sue someone so they can pay it for me." That's America's legal system in a nutshell. It literally doesn't matter if anyone is to blame, it's like "well, what am I supposed to do, other than sue someone who has money???"
If you stand to the side of an escalator step (perhaps you are letting someone pass) there should be zero chance that your shoe or some other piece of clothing should be sucked into the machinery.
There MUST be a gap between the moving step and the stationary side wall. Even if the gap is 1/16th of an inch it could be enough of a gap to begin drawing in fabric. The step has a roller on either side and there is a slight bit of play to the step to allow maintenance to remove the step to replace worn rollers or inspect the machinery below. The steps roll with a very large drive chain. There is no way to make the gap between the step and side walls so tight that no fabric can be dragged in without scraping metal on metal in many places.
There MUST be a gap between the moving step and the stationary side wall. Even if the gap is 1/16th of an inch it could be enough of a gap to begin drawing in fabric. The step has a roller on either side and there is a slight bit of play to the step to allow maintenance to remove the step to replace worn rollers or inspect the machinery below. The steps roll with a very large drive chain. There is no way to make the gap between the step and side walls so tight that no fabric can be dragged in without scraping metal on metal in many places.
you're out of the loop, there absolutely is something that can be done and it's not expensive
any responsible AHJ will have mandated skirt brushes that would greatly reduce the chance of these entrapments from occurring
perhaps your community hasn't gotten around to enacting these widely accepted standards
The problem is the starting premise is the very issue. "Something happened to me and I can't pay for medical bills, so I should sue someone so they can pay it for me." That's America's legal system in a nutshell. It literally doesn't matter if anyone is to blame, it's like "well, what am I supposed to do, other than sue someone who has money???"
It's not suing who has money, it's suing who has insurance #1.
And spreading costs among insurers is preferable to bankrupting people, it's why we have insurance. It's why drivers have insurance, it's why businesses have insurance, it's the whole point of the industry. Spreading burden. But you're right, something catastrophic happens, what else do we have left to do other than sue? That's the point.
My kids grew up before crocs but on escalators I always either carried them or kept them in tow ready to lift them. My fear always was at the very end where the tread would go into the floor. Myself, I always gave a little hop over that part so my foot didn't go into the grid there.
When I was younger (preteen) I had a pair of high heels on and the heel got stuck in the grid going into the flat part of the floor at the end. I stepped out of the shoe quickly but the shoe I wrenched out and the heel was mangled. Thus my habit of the hop over at the end.
I don't know why crocs are considered unsafe. I wear another brand of the same, and the molded inside part supports my arch nicely, that's why I like them. Nurses wear them a lot. I think the parents share some responsibility, but unfortunately that's not the way things work these days. I hope the little boy will be ok.
Not out of the loop. I've seen these devices. I've also seen them damaged by the escalator riders. I've seen young kids pass their hand across these brushes. They're only partially effective, mostly when newly installed if installed properly. The problem isn't the escalator and its safety devices, the problem is the passengers who ride expecting it to be 100% safe without obeying the safety warnings posted at each end of the escalator.
Well, I'm sure it was painful for the child, but why sue Crocs? There is just as much danger with wearing flip-flops on an escalator. Why blame the footwear? Most of the entrapment accidents happen to kids 14 and under, and they are usually caused by the kid standing near the edge of the escalator. The bulbous toe on a pair of Crocs can, perhaps, be more easily wedged in the space where the steps meet the side and then shrink near the top/bottom of the escalator -- if the child is kicking the side of the escalator, or not standing quietly. But it's that very style of shoe that attracts the kids and their parents.
Crocs has hang-tags on their shoes, since 2008, that say the following: · Stand facing forward in the center of the step
· Step on and off carefully
· Do not touch sides below handrail · Avoid the sides of the steps where shoe entrapment can occur
· Supervise children at all times
If the parent clipped it off and didn't read it, how it that Crocs fault? The article says that the mother was holding the child's hand and the accident happened on the edge -- thus breaking three of the cautions. I'm so sorry for the child, but I wonder what might have happened if he was wearing athletic shoes or even flip-flops . . . ouch.
Well, I'm sure it was painful for the child, but why sue Crocs? There is just as much danger with wearing flip-flops on an escalator. Why blame the footwear? Most of the entrapment accidents happen to kids 14 and under, and they are usually caused by the kid standing near the edge of the escalator. The bulbous toe on a pair of Crocs can, perhaps, be more easily wedged in the space where the steps meet the side and then shrink near the top/bottom of the escalator -- if the child is kicking the side of the escalator, or not standing quietly. But it's that very style of shoe that attracts the kids and their parents.
Crocs has hang-tags on their shoes, since 2008, that say the following: · Stand facing forward in the center of the step
· Step on and off carefully
· Do not touch sides below handrail · Avoid the sides of the steps where shoe entrapment can occur
· Supervise children at all times
If the parent clipped it off and didn't read it, how it that Crocs fault? The article says that the mother was holding the child's hand and the accident happened on the edge -- thus breaking three of the cautions. I'm so sorry for the child, but I wonder what might have happened if he was wearing athletic shoes or even flip-flops . . . ouch.
All defenses likely asserted by Crocs. This is litigation afterall.
Sounds like they saw some deep pockets. A kid on an escalator with sandals?
That. Someone should sue the parents.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
