Interested in the ST community’s views on the following:
I was out on a 10 mile run this weekend and felt what I believed to be a small blister on the inside of my right foot, near the ball. Believing it to be only a blister, I kept running. When I got home, found a hole had been made through my now-bloody sock and that I had a short, ~1/4 inch deep cut in the side of my foot. It seems the footbed of the shoe has a very rough edge that cut through both the upper of the shoe and the side of my foot; the rough edge can be felt through the hole in the shoe.
The shoes are less than 3 mo old and have perhaps 100 or so miles on them. I’ve owned many running shoes and never experienced an issue of this sort, and found it particularly shocking given these are expensive shoes.
Emailed customer support (which has a reputation here for being great) with details and pictures and was given a form response re warranty policy. I subsequently called and was told to send them in for replacement, and that there is nothing more they could do.
Clearly the shoes are defective, but should I expect anything more than a replacement pair (eg given how inexpensive running shoes are, maybe a second pair or something)?
Unreasonable. If they agreed to give you a replacement then thats all you can expect. I’ve had to replace a pair of defective shoes and certainly didnt expect anything more than a new pair. Also, you are probably better off going through the store from which you purchased them from rather than direct to the manufacture. Let the store deal with the manufacturer and you will probably walk out with a new pair right there.
-You notice a problem. Inform company
-You call customer service
-You fill out the paper work
-You send in product
-They replace it
Yup- that how most warranty’s work. Should the product be defective, the product gets replaced with a new, and hopefully non-defective, product. It sound’s like great customer service to me. Why would the company give you 2 pairs of shoes to replace 1 defective pair?
It has been my experience that when someone starts by saying “Am I being unreasonable”?, the answer almost always is “yes”. This scenario follows that pattern.
To balance things a bit here, I am the last person to pursue product liability and legal action, but I would be pretty unhappy if a design flaw in a product injured me. Not sure if that is the case here, but that is what the customer alleges. Sure it is just a cut on the ball of the foot, but if it was defect and not a simple case of use and bad luck (like a typical shoe induced blister), then it is a shoe problem and not a user problem. No analogies or what ifs, but you can follow a line of thinking that the manufacturer should be bending over backward a bit to make the customer happy. If he was a professional triathlete and this ruined his A race, what would you say? What if he got a bone infection and had to have surgery?
To balance things a bit here, I am the last person to pursue product liability and legal action, but I would be pretty unhappy if a design flaw in a product injured me. Not sure if that is the case here, but that is what the customer alleges. Sure it is just a cut on the ball of the foot, but if it was defect and not a simple case of use and bad luck (like a typical shoe induced blister), then it is a shoe problem and not a user problem. No analogies or what ifs, but you can follow a line of thinking that the manufacturer should be bending over backward a bit to make the customer happy. If he was a professional triathlete and this ruined his A race, what would you say?What if he got a bone infection and had to have surgery?
OK, but he is not a pro, and it didn’t ruin a race. and he didn’t get an infection (assuming he’s told us everything). Even assuming there is any merit (which I would dispute, how do you know it’s a design defect, i don’t think the OP knows enough about the shoe to opine whether a design or manufacturing defect… maybe a one off manufacturing defect… ) what are his damages? If you quit creating hypotheticals and deal with the actual facts, there is no “there” there
And, just because there is blood, does that mean it’s a design defect? Any other complaints of this injury on this shoe (maybe it’s caused by the particular shape of the OP’s foot… I had a pair of gel nimbus which cut me because of a bony structure on the outside of my ankle… it happens)?
To balance things a bit here, I am the last person to pursue product liability and legal action, but I would be pretty unhappy if a design flaw in a product injured me. Not sure if that is the case here, but that is what the customer alleges. Sure it is just a cut on the ball of the foot, but if it was defect and not a simple case of use and bad luck (like a typical shoe induced blister), then it is a shoe problem and not a user problem. No analogies or what ifs, but you can follow a line of thinking that the manufacturer should be bending over backward a bit to make the customer happy. If he was a professional triathlete and this ruined his A race, what would you say?What if he got a bone infection and had to have surgery?
OK, but he is not a pro, and it didn’t ruin a race. and he didn’t get an infection (assuming he’s told us everything). Even assuming there is any merit (which I would dispute, how do you know it’s a design defect, i don’t think the OP knows enough about the shoe to opine whether a design or manufacturing defect… maybe a one off manufacturing defect… ) what are his damages? If you quit creating hypotheticals and deal with the actual facts, there is no “there” there
And, just because there is blood, does that mean it’s a design defect? Any other complaints of this injury on this shoe (maybe it’s caused by the particular shape of the OP’s foot… I had a pair of gel nimbus which cut me because of a bony structure on the outside of my ankle… it happens)?
I didn’t say it was a design defect. I said he alleges this is a design defect. If we all accept what he says as true, then that leads to different conclusions than if we think he is wrong.
You didn’t answer my questions. Would you feel differently if he was a pro or had a significant complication from the alleged problem resulting from the shoes?
B. As someone mentioned above, I would expect a pro would have tested out shoes prior to his or her “A” race. As we all learn over on BT, nothing new on race day.
C. You do say it’s a design flaw, by buying right into OP’s claim that it is. Why do you assume he is right? Is he a shoe designer that has some expertise? A products liability lawyer? Just because something causes an injury, doesn’t mean there’s a design flaw…
Interested in the ST community’s views on the following:
Clearly the shoes are defective, but should I expect anything more than a replacement pair (eg given how inexpensive running shoes are, maybe a second pair or something)?
I recently had a similar experience… except it started on run number one. I gave it a few runs to correct itself but by then I was getting a nasty wound in the achilles area. I sent them an e-mail with bloody pics and they agreed to replace the shoes with another pair. Life was good again and my skin healed up over the next couple of weeks… satisfied with that.