August 1, 2011

Portland is a great walking city. Natives and visitors alike wander the miles of trails in and around the city. With all this walking comes the search for the perfect walking shoe. One woman learned the hard way that the popular rocker-bottom shoes are not that perfect shoe.

The shoe isn’t just imperfect; it’s far from what the manufacturer promised. The woman has filed a product liability lawsuit after sustaining a serious injury while wearing the shoes.

She purchased the shoes believing that they offered additional health benefits. The manufacturer has touted the shoes as “toning shoes” that can be worn while exercising, walking and working — wear these shoes, and you’ll get a better cardio workout.

The shoes come with an instructional video and other informational material. The plaintiff read and watched and followed the directions to the letter. When it came time for her vacation, she put the rocker-bottom shoes on, laced them up and hit the road.

Unfortunately, as she strolled the streets of the nation’s capital, her shoe tipped inward and she rolled her ankle.

The pain was excruciating, according to the complaint, and it didn’t go away. After unsuccessful non-invasive treatment, doctors discovered a torn tendon that could only be repaired surgically. The surgeon has told her that the injury is permanent.

As a result of that ankle turn, the plaintiff incurred and will continue to incur medical costs; she has lost time from work, and she is especially prone to additional injury. All of this because she was “lulled into purchasing a dangerous product,” as the complaint says.

And, the defendant shoe manufacturer was well aware of the dangers associated with rocker bottoms. Worse, the defendant knew, the complaint continues, that the shoe’s unstable design offered none of the health benefits advertised.

We’ll get into the specific claims and the specific problems with the rocker-bottom shoes in our next post.

Source: Complaint with Demand for Jury Trial, Croak v. Skechers, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 11-cv-01458-TFH, filed Aug. 11, 2011


Categories: Blog