This is a collection of cases in which the choice of shoe, or going barefoot, was implicated in a negligence injury lawsuit. Most of these cases are from the appeals court level, since those cases that are not appealed are rarely published.
The Shoe Injuries section contains only those cases in which the type of shoe was specifically mentioned in the case. In some cases it is also mentioned as possibly contributing to the injury, usually by the defendant arguing that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent through their choice of footwear. Of course, practically every other slip and fall (or trip and fall) case occurred when the plaintiff was wearing shoes, but in the vast majority of them the shoes are not mentioned.
Here is a PDF that summarizes the high heel and platform shoe injury cases. Here is a PDF that summarizes the flip-flop injury cases. Here is a PDF that summarizes the sandal injury cases. And here is a PDF that combines the previous three PDF files.
The Barefoot Injuries section contains those cases in which the injured person was barefoot, even if the bare feet may have had little to do with the injury. This list is pretty much a complete list of barefoot injury cases. Most barefoot injuries are either outdoors, or indoors at a pool or locker room.
In many respects, this is an asymmetric list. A barefoot case appears on the list if the word "barefoot" (or "barefooted" or the words "bare feet") appears in any sort of injury decision. So this is a pretty much complete list of all cases in which bare feet are even mentioned. However, the word "shoes", or "sandals", or similar words appear way too often in decisions to be able to get a complete list of cases. Furthermore, the type of shoe in a fall is rarely even mentioned, so none of those cases appear here, either. Thus, the "Shoe Injuries" section is necessarily incomplete, and can only be a small sample of cases.
Probably the most important thing to get out of this list is that injuries happen for a whole host of reasons, and seem to have very little to do with the actual footwear involved. Furthermore, whether somebody wins their case or not usually depends on, not the existance of the potential hazard or the injury, but what facts are available to prove culpability (on either the plaintiff's or defendant's parts).
Barefoot Injuries
In a Shop or Store
(4 cases)
Anderson v. Racetrac Petroleum, Inc., 296 S.C. 204, 371 S.E.2d 530 (S.Car. 1988)
A barefoot customer got an unspecified injury from a metal strip on the floor inside a gas station. The court remanded the case saying that summary judgment was inappropriate, as there were still genuine issues of material fact to be determined.
A full trial was held on November 16, 1988, in which the jury found for the defendant (the gas station).
Green v. Kimbell, 647 S.W.2d 110 (Tex.App.Dist.2 1983)
A barefoot boy in a grocery store slipped and fell on a wet area of the floor. The trial court directed a verdict for the store. The appeals court reversed and remanded, since there was some evidence that the store knew about, or should have known about the wet area.
Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. of Newport v. Whidden, 227 Ark. 13, 296 S.W.2d 432 (Ark. 1956)
A barefoot girl in her father's store had her foot injured when a Dr. Pepper bottle exploded and hit her on the foot. The judge awarded $3000, which was affirmed by the appeals court.
Huber v. American Drug Stores, 19 La. App. 430, 140 So. 120 (La.App. 1932)
It is not clear whether this is a barefoot case or not. It is never stated whether Mrs. Huber was barefoot or not. The description of the occurence never says that she stepped on the broken glass, but that her "foot came in contact with the jagged edges of a broken glass jar", and that her "foot struck the jagged edges of the glass". On the other hand, her injuries were described as "four deep cuts, three on the bottom of her foot and one on top of it."
A woman cut her foot on a pile of glass from a broken jar. The trial court dismissed the suit. The court of appeals reversed.
In a Wet Environment (Locker Room, Pool, Spa, etc.)
(20 cases)
Tuggle v. Amisub, Inc., No. W1999-02444-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.App. 2000)
A woman, while bathing her feet in a hospital room, got up to answer the phone and slipped and fell. Summary judgment for the hospital affirmed.
Felder v. Victory Fitness Ctr., No. 97APE12-1648 (Franklin Cty., Ohio 1998)
Barefooted slip and fall on a wet locker room floor. Summary judgment in favor of Victory Fitness Center was affirmed.
Bradley v. Franklin County Prison, 674 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996)
A barefoot prisoner slipped and fell in the drying-off area of the prison shower. The trial court granted a motion for a judgment on the pleadings in favor of the prison (whether prison was immune from the suit); the appeals court reversed.
Wright v. Vail Run Resort Community Association Inc., 917 P.2d 364 (Colo.App. 1996)
While at the pool of a condominium, a barefoot man slipped on the brick deck and injured his foot. Summary judgment for the condominium was affirmed.
DeLaune v. Medical Center Baton Rouge, No. 95 CA 1190 (La.App.1 Cir. 1996)
A barefoot woman in a hospital room slipped on the wet soapy floor of the bathroom. The jury found for the hospital; the court of appeals reversed and remanded.
Robertson v. Travelers Inn, 613 So. 2d 376 (Ala. 1993)
A woman, barefoot in her hotel room, slipped and fell on a wet spot on the carpeting, caused by a leaking water heater. Summary judgment for the hotel reversed and remanded.
Moralli v. Lake County, 255 Mont. 23, 839 P.2d 1287 (Mont. 1992)
A woman in jail was refused any sort of footwear, and while using the toilet in her bare feet, and with water on the floor from a shower, slipped and injured herself. She was awarded $35,400.00, reduced to $24,780.00 after being found 30% negligent. The Supreme Court affirmed.
Sharpe v. Adam Dante Corporation, 468 S.W.2d 167 (Tex.App.Dist.5 1987)
A barefoot woman slipped and fell on the wet tiles around the swimming pool of a spa. Summary judgment for the spa was reversed, to consider the issue of contributory negligence.
Johnson v. Tucson Estates Inc., 683 P.2d 330, 140 Ariz. 531 (Ariz.App.Div.2 1984)
A barefoot man slipped and fell in a shower/locker room with a lot of "soap scum" on the floor. The jury awarded damages.
Bisnett v. Mowder, 560 P.2d 68 (Ariz. 1977)
Barefooted slip and fall on a wet patio next to a homeowner's swimming pool. Summary judgment for the pool owner was reversed, since they had recently painted the the patio with a glossy (and slippery) paint, and had failed to warn the Bisnetts.
Wagner v. Coronet Hotel and Rubbermaid Inc., 458 P.2d 390, 10 Ariz. App. 296 (Ariz.App.Div.1 1969)
Barefooted slip and fall on a poorly designed bathtub mat in a hotel room bathtub. After a jury awarded $40,000, the trial court judge granted a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (the jury award was thrown out). The appeals court ruled that only Rubbermaid was liable, since the bathmat had no rubber cups in a large portion of its center, and thereby was likely to slip.
Winer v. WALO, No. 57-331 (Fla.App.Dist.3 1966)
A doctor at a motel swimming pool heard a boy calling for help, and slipped and fell in his bare feet rushing to the boy's aid. The trial judge directed a verdict for the motel; the appeals court affirmed.
Keown v. Keown, 394 S.W.2d 915 (Ky.App. 1965)
A barefoot man, taking a shower in a bathtub with an upside-down bathmat, slipped and fell. The trial court awarded $5,000. The appeals court reversed.
Campbell v. City of Peru, 48 Ill. App.2d 267, 198 N.E.2d 719 (Ill.App. Dist.3 1964)
A barefooted woman slipped and fell in the bathhouse of a municipal swimming pool. The jury awarded $18,000, which the appeals court affirmed.
Sauer v. Hebrew Institute Long Island, 233 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 17 A.D.2d 245 (N.Y.App. 1962)
A barefoot boy, at summer camp, slipped on wet grass while playing a game and hit his head on a concrete walkway. The trial judge awarded $15,000, which was reversed on appeal.
Post v. Camino Del Properties Inc., 173 Cal. App. 2d 446, 343 P.2d 294 (Cal.App.Dist.4 1959)
A barefooted man slipped on a smooth concrete step leading to a swimming pool. The trial jury awarded $24,440, but the trial judge granted a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appeals court reversed, and ordered a new trial.
Goodmaker v. Kelley, 154 Cal. App. 2d 457, 316 P.2d 746 (Cal.App.Dist.2 1957)
A man in a bathing suit and barefooted slipped and fell on a stairway to his apartment (coming from the apartment pool). The trial court ruled for the apartment, and the appeals court affirmed.
Kessler et al. v. Thomas Corp. et al., 73 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1954)
A barefoot woman slipped and fell at the lunch-counter next to a hotel's swimming pool. Summary judgment for the hotel was affirmed.
Andrews v. Narber, 59 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1952)
A barefooted woman at a pool slipped where some water had puddled. The trial court dismissed; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Johnson v. Bimini Hot Springs, 56 Cal. App. 2d 892, 133 P.2d 650 (Cal.App. Dist.3 1943)
A barefoot woman slipped and fell in the shower of a bathhouse. The trial court ruled for the woman; the appeals court affirmed.
Outdoors
(14 cases)
Pressler v. Calhoun, No. CA94-03-037 (Warren Cty., Ohio 1994)
A person playing volleyball in his bare feet stepped on one of the stakes holding up the volleyball net and punctured his foot. Summary judgment for the homeowners was affirmed.
Ziegel v. South Central Bell, 635 So. 2d 314 (La.App.5 Cir. 1994)
A barefoot boy sliced his toe on a South Central Bell telephone box on the boy's property, despite South Central Bell being notified of the box's dilapidated condition. The trial court awarded $5,200. The appeals court affirmed and raised the award by $2,500.
Martin v. City of Gadsden, 584 So. 2d 796 (Ala. 1991)
A barefoot toddler at a City Park was burned when he stepped on charcoal briquets that had been left on the ground. The jury verdict for the City was affirmed.
McDermott v. Jester, 466 So.2d 795 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1985)
A 16-year-old girl, running barefoot at night, tripped, fell, and injured herself over a sidewalk with a large raised section. The trial court ruled that the girl could not recover from the city due to her own negligence. The appeals court affirmed.
Martinez v. The Parish of East Baton Rouge, 288 So. 2d 924 (La.App.1 Cir. 1973)
A barefooted boy walking down the street stepped on newly laid asphalt and burned his feet. He was awarded $370. The appeals court affirmed.
Osteen v. Purdue, 275 So. 2d 502 (La.App.2 Cir. 1973)
A barefooted woman (she claimed to be wearing flip-flops, then mocassins, but other witnesses say she was barefooted) walking over to visit her neighbor severely cut her foot, and claimed that it was on a metal pipe protruding from the neighbor's driveway. The trial court ruled that she failed to prove her case; the appeals court affirmed.
Arshack v. Carl M. Freeman Associates Inc., 260 Md. 269, 272 A.2d 30 (Md.App. 1971)
A barefooted boy cut his foot on some glass in the grass around his apartment complex. The trial court directed a verdict for the apartment complex. The appeals court affirmed.
Lamb v. Redemptorist Father of Georgia, Inc., 142 S.E. 2d 278 (Ga. App. 1965)
The grass next to a parochial school swimming pool was allowed to grow to six to eight inches, and thereby concealed broken glass and other trash that had been thrown into the grass. A barefooted boy cut his foot on a tin can hidden in the grass. Judgment of the trial court was reversed, since a jury should have decided whether the parochial school was negligent in its maintenance of the grassy area.
Banks v. Watts, 44 S.E.2d 510, 75 Ga. App. 769 (Ga.App. 1947)
A barefooted boy walking along the sidewalk suddenly had a Cleaners empty boiling water out a pipe in the side of the building, scalding his legs and feet. The trial court found for the boy; the appeals court affirmed.
Lang v. Jersey Gold Creameries, Inc., 172 So. 389 (La.App.2 Cir. 1937)
A barefoot boy severely cut his heel on a broken milk bottle in a culvert. Presumably the milk bottle fell off the milk wagon of the defendant. The circumstances of the event showed no evidence that the milk bottle was one that had fallen off the wagon, and there was no way to tell where it had come from. The trial court ruled for the Creamery, and the appeals court affirmed.
Aaron v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. et al., 143 Ga. 153, 84 S.E. 556 (Ga. 1915)
A barefooted woman cut her foot on broken glass outside a store on the sidewalk. The glass was there because the Coca Cola delivery person had placed the bottle in a spot such that opening the door of the business would knock off the bottle so it would break. The trial court dismissed based on misjoinder of parties (whether both Coca Cola and thes store could be sued). The Supreme Court reversed, saying there was sufficient evidence of negligence on both their parts for a full trial.
Butler v. Metropolitan Street Railway Company, 117 Mo. App. 354, 93 S.W. 877 (Mo.App. 1906)
A barefoot boy was hit by a cable car when he stopped on the track to pick a piece of glass out of his bare foot. The boy was awarded $1850. The appeals court reversed (based on an error in an instruction) and remanded for a new trial.
Kane v. West End Street Railway Company, 169 Mass. 64, 47 N.E. 501 (Mass. 1897)
A barefoot boy stepped on a streetcar rail in the street that had recently been welded, but had cooled sufficiently so as not to be noticeable. He burned his feet. The trial jury awarded damages; the appeals court affirmed.
Clark vs. Inhabitants of Waltham, 128 Mass. 567 (Mass. 1880)
A barefoot boy injured his foot stepping on an old post stub in a town park. The town was held not liable, and the appeals court affirmed.
Electric Shock
(7 cases)
Triana v. Fi-Shock, Inc., 763 So.2d 454 (Fla.App. 2000)
A barefoot handyman was installing cable service at a home. He came in contact with an electric dog fence, and was severely shocked. The homeowner (not the fence manufacturer) was found liable, and the appeals court affirmed.
Florida Farm Bur. Ins. Co. v. Barrett, 399 So. 2d 993 (Fla.App.Dist.1 1981)
A man died of a heart attack triggered by an electrical shock while working barefoot in the bilge of a yacht. The case was about whether he was covered by workman's compensation or not.
Williams v. Regula, 266 S.C. 228, 222 S.E.2d 7 (S.C. 1976)
A barefooted girl was electrocuted while exiting her trailer home in the rain, from an exterior light that was grounded on the metal steps of the trailer. The trial court dismissed the case; the supreme court affirmed (based on a lousy appeal).
Mark v. Pacific Gas and Electric Co., 7 Cal. 3d 170, 496 P.2d (Cal. 1972)
A barefooted man reached out his apartment window to unscrew a street-lamp, and was electrocuted. The trial court dismissed the case; the Supreme Court reversed and ordered a trial.
Planters Electric Membership Corporation v. Burke, 105 S.E.2d 787, 98 Ga. App. 380 (Ga. App. 1958)
A barefooted boy was electrocuted when the aerial he was moving came in contact with a 6,000 volt power line. The appeals court affirmed that there was sufficient evidence to go to trial.
Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Company v. Perry, 13 Tenn. App. 664 (Tenn.App. 1931)
A barefoot boy, investigating a power line that had fallen 4 hours previously, was electrocuted. The jury found the power company negligent in not turning off the power earlier; the court of appeals affirmed.
Morrow v. Missouri Gas & Electric Service Company, 315 Mo. 367, 286 S.W. 106 (Mo. 1926)
A barefoot man, taking a shower in his basement with a damp floor, was electrocuted when he touched a lamp cord. The jury found that the outside wires were getting excess current from a feeder line, which caused his death. The appeals court affirmed.
Other
(18 cases)
Galland v. Meridia Health System, Inc., No. 21763 (Ohio App.Dist 9 2004)
A little girl at an emergency room was instructed to take off her shoes and socks for a balance test. When she stepped onto the floor, she stepped on a used suture needle. The appeals court reversed the premature granting of partial summary judgment for the hospital.
Smith v. Hamrick, 583 S.E.2d 676 (N.C.App. 2003)
A woman in an automobile accident had her shoes come off, and because they were covered with broken glass, she did not put them back on, and cut her feet while walking around on the broken glass. The jury awarded her $1.00 in nominal damages, which was affirmed by the appeals court.
Perez v. Axon Development Corp., No. B158779 (Cal.App. Dist.2 2003)
A woman, barefooted in her rented home, stepped on a carpet tack, fell backward, and broke a toe. Summary judgment for the landlord was affirmed.
Pagel v. Oxford Township, No. 241217 (Mich.App. 2003)
A barefooted man dislocated his shoulder when he slipped on a wet walkway next to a boat ramp. The trial court dismissed and the appeals court affirmed.
Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Duluth v. Kelly, No. CX-01-1638 (Minn.App. 2002)
A man left open his window on a cold night which froze the pipes to his radiator and caused it to spill extremely hot water all over the floor. When he arose he stepped into the hot water and scalded his bare feet and legs. The jury awarded the man $74,074.95, which the appeals court affirmed.
Ex parte Neese, 819 So.2d 584 (Ala. 2001)
A woman, leaving a house barefooted because of rain, slipped and fell on an upside-down mat on the carport sidewalk. The trial court and appeals court found for the homeowner, saying the hazard was open and obvious; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Banker-Riskin v. Holman, No. B143685 (Cal.App.Dist.2 2001)
A barefoot firewalking woman was severely burned. The trial court ruled that the waiver she signed relieved the facilitators of all liability. The appeals court affirmed.
Matukas v. Kassam, 77 So.2d 252 (Fla.App. 1997)
A man cleaning a roof while barefoot fell when a tile came loose. Summary judgment for the homeowners was affirmed by the appeals court.
Parfait v. Hospital Service District, 638 So. 2d 1140 (La.App.1 Cir. 1994)
A woman, while barefoot in a hospital, stepped on a sliver of glass and jerked her knee, striking it against an adjacent bed. The trial court dismissed her complaint. The appeals court affirmed.
Diorio v. Penny, 331 N.C. 726, 417 S.E.2d 457 (N.C. 06/25/1992)
A house renter fell while descending barefoot down stairs. The trial court granted summary judgment to the owner and against the renter. The appeals court affirmed. The Supreme Court also affirmed.
Herren v. Bonham, 825 P.2d 1321, 1992 OK 10 (Okla. 1992)
A barefooted woman tenant was mowing the lawn of the rented property. While mowing backwards, she tripped over a stump, and cut off her big toe. The trial court granted summary judgment to the property owner. The appeals court reversed, but the Supreme Court vacated the appeals court decision and re-instated the summary judgment.
Webb v. Hunter, 431 So. 2d 1131 (Miss. 1983)
A man working barefoot in a stream stepped into a deep hole and drowned. The administrative court denied workman's compensation, which was upheld by the circuit court. The supreme court reversed and remanded
Cooke v. Mortensen, 624 P.2d 675 (Utah 1981)
A barefoot man climbed up onto some boxes in his apartment while trying to open a window stuck shut by paint. Summary judgment for the apartment owners was affirmed by the supreme court.
Burgess v. Jefferson, 162 W. Va. 1, 245 S.E.2d 626 (W.Va. 1978)
A woman barefoot in her own home cut her foot on broken glass caused by a golf ball from a nearby golf course breaking a window. The jury awarded $10,000, which was set aside by the trial judge. The appeals court re-instated the original award.
Krumm v. Beasley, No. 78AP-105 (Ohio.App.Dist. 10 1978)
A barefoot woman, descending the outdoor steps of her apartment during thunderstorm, slipped and fell. The trial court directed a verdict for the landlord, which was affirmed by the appeals court.
Brod v. Central School District No. 1, et al. 386 N.Y.S.2d 125, 53 A.D.2d 1002 (N.Y.App. 1976)
A nine-year-old boy, having forgotten his gym shoes, was told by his teacher that to participate in gym he would have to go barefoot. While barefoot, he tripped, saying his foot stuck to the floor, and lost his two front teeth. The trial court awarded $15,000. The appeals court ordered a new trial, on damages only, or, in the alternative, to agree to damages of $8,000 instead.
Ruane v. Doyle, 32 N.E.2d 244, 308 Mass. 418 (Mass. 1941)
A barefooted man stepped out of his apartment and slipped on a loose mat. The trial judge directed a verdict for the apartment owners. The supreme court ruled that it should have gone to the jury.
Day v. Trion Company, 56 Ga. App. 1, 192 S.E. 88 (Ga.App. 1937)
A barefoot boy dove into a swimming pool that was being filled, broke his back, and died. The trial judge dismissed the case, which was affirmed by the appeals court.
Shoe Injuries
High (or other) Heels
(26 cases)
Lovell v. Hawks, Lorain App. No. 99CA007425 (Lorain Cty., Ohio, 2000)
A woman fell down the steps of the front porch of a house when the heel of her shoe got caught in the cinder block that was being used as the bottom step. Summary judgment for the homeowner was affirmed.
Robinson v. Martin Chevrolet, Inc., Trumbull App. No. 98-T-0070 (Trumbull Cty., Ohio, 1999)
A woman wearing one-inch heels slipped and fell in a car repair shop. Summary judgment for the shop was affirmed.
Jones v. Hyatt Corporation of Del., 681 So.2d 381 (La.App.4 Cir. 1995/1996)
Woman slipped and fell on a water spot in the corridor of a hotel, while wearing either high-heeled shoes or wedged heels. Jury decision affirmed, with reduction in amount awarded.
Choyce v. Sisters of the Incarnate Word, 642 So. 2d 287 (La.App.Cir.2 1994)
A woman wearing strapless shoes with closed toes, rubber soles, and 3½ inch heels slipped and fell on a hospital floor. She claimed an extremely slippery floor from excessive waxing. She was awarded $134846.47; the appeals court affirmed.
Mills v. MMM Carpets, Inc., 1 Cal. App. 4th 83, 1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 813 (Cal.App.Dist.6 1991)
A woman injured her back when the heel of her shoe punctured a section of carpeting that had been laid over an uncovered utility hole. The case was about how to allocate damages over several tortfeasors.
Christine Burns v. Schnuck Markets, 719 S.W.2d 499 (Mo.App.Div.3 1986)
A woman sprained her ankle when her shopping cart suddenly stopped. A jury awarded her $5,000 which was reduced to $2,500 on her contributory negligence, based on her wearing high-heeled shoes. The appeals court reversed the contributory negligence finding, and awarded her the full $5,000.
Ryan v. City of Chicago, 329 N.E.2d 305, 28 Ill. App.3d 743 (Ill.App. Dist.1 1975)
A woman wearing high-heeled shoes fell when one heel got caught in tar that had been used to fill sidewalk cracks. The jury awarded $62,000, which the appeals court affirmed.
Tolman v. Wieboldt Stores, Inc., 73 Ill. App.2d 320, 219 N.E.2d 560 (Ill.App. Dist.1 1966)
The heel of a woman's shoe got caught in the slats of an escalator and she was injured. The jury awarded her $10,000. The appeals court reversed the award, and order judgment in favor of the store.
Vegodsky v. City of Tucson, 399 P.2d 723, 1 Ariz. App. 102 (Ariz.App.Div.2 1965)
A woman wearing pumps with moderately high heels fell into a hole at a street intersection and broke her knee. The jury found in favor of the city. The appeals court reversed, based upon an erroneous jury instruction.
Crowell-Gifford Furniture Company v. Cloutman, 276 S.W.2d 539 (Tex.Civ.App. 1955)
A woman wearing high-heeled (2-inch heels) black patent sandals got her heel caught on the tread of a stairway in a furniture store, and fell to the bottom of the stairs. The trial court awarded the woman $14,250, which was affirmed by the appeals court.
Blumberg v. M. & T. Inc., 34 Cal. 2d 226, 209 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1949)
A woman slipped and fell in the lobby of an office building when one of her shoes with a medium spike heel got caught in the cross-hatch of the floor mat. Summary judgment for the building was reversed, since the role of the floor mat was a genuine issue of material fact.
Smith v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 18 N.W.2d 352, 246 Wis. 628 (Wis. 1945)
A woman wearing high-heeled sandals got her heels caught while getting off a train and fell. The jury awarded $5,400, but the trial judge dismissed the case without award. The appeals court affirmed the trial judge.
Swanson v. S. S. Kresge Co., 302 Ill. App. 455, 24 N.E.2d 62 (Ill.App.1 1939)
A woman caught her heel in the nosing of a stair at a department store and was injured. The trial jury awarded $750, which the court of appeals affirmed.
Stewart v. George B. Peck Co., 234 Mo. App. 864, 135 S.W.2d 405 (Mo. App. 1939)
A woman descending the stairs at a department store caught her heel in the tread and fell. The jury awarded $4,000, and the appeals court affirmed.
Dooley v. Economy Store, 109 Vt. 138, 194 A. 375 (Vt. 1937)
A woman in a department store caught the heel of her shoe on a stair-step and fell. The woman won at the trial court level. The appeals court reversed, and said that the store should have received a directed verdict.
Pastrick v. S. S. Kresge Co., 192 N.E. 485, 288 Mass. 194 (Mass. 1934)
The toe of the sole of a woman's shoe caught on a stair step and she fell, injuring herself. The trial judge found for the defendant. Verdict affirmed.
Grigsby v. Morgan & Lindsey, 148 So. 506 (La.App. 1933)
A woman caught her heel in a hole in the floor, fell, and was injured. The trial court awarded the woman $600. The appeals court upped that to $1200.
Hellyer v. Sears, R. & Co., 62 App.D.C. 318, 67 F.2d 584 (D.C.App. 1933)
A woman fell down stairs at Sears when her heel caught in the metal flashing on the stairs and came off. The trial judge bound the jury to rule for Sears. The appeals court said that negligence was a question for the jury to decide.
Richter v. L. Bamberger & Co., 11 N.J.Mis.R. 229, 165 A. 289 (N.J. 1933)
A woman was injured on an escalator when the heel of the woman ahead of her got wedged in the escalator and traffic backed up. The trial judge found Bambergers negligent in its maintenance of the escalator. The court of appeals affirmed.
Hastings v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 189 Minn. 523, 250 N.W. 362 (Minn. 1933)
A woman was injured when the heel of her shoe caught in a small hole in the floor. The trial court directed a verdict for Woolworths. The Supreme Court reversed, and said it should have gone to the jury.
Shorkey v. Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co., 259 Mich. 450, 243 N.W. 257 (Mich. 1932)
Woman with high heels slipped and fell when her heel got caught in the holes of a hot-air register. Original trial verdict for the woman reversed.
Stark v. Franklin Simon & Co., 237 App.Div. 42, 260 N.Y.S. 691 (N.Y.App. 1932)
A woman fell after the heel of her French-heeled shoe caught between 2 metal strips of a staircase. The trial court ruled for the woman, but the appeals court reversed and ordered dismissal.
McBride v. The May Department Stores Co., 39 Ohio App. 420, 177 N.E. 773 (Cuyahoga Cty. Ohio 1931)
The May Department Stores Co. v. McBride, 124 Ohio St. 264, 178 N.E. 12 (Ohio 1931)A woman's heel became wedged between the slats of an escalator, causing her to fall and be injured. The jury found for the department store. The appeals court reversed and remanded, saying that the wrong standard was given to the jury, and that the proper level of duty on an escalator is the highest degree of care (similar to a common carrier). The supreme court agreed with the appeals court.
Bohannon v. Leonard-Fitzpatrick-Mueller Stores Co., 197 N.C. 755, 150 S.E. 356 (N.C. 1929)
A woman caught her heel on the metal strip of a stairway (sticking up 1/16 of an inch) and was injured. The trial court and the appeals court ruled for the woman and awarded $1000. The supreme court ruled that no negligence was shown, and reversed.
Leach v. S. S. Kresge Co., 147 A. 759 (R.I. 1929)
The heel of a woman's shoe got caught in the nosing of a stair, causing her to fall and get injured. The trial court directed a verdict for the store; the appeals court affirmed, saying there was no evidence of negligence.
Brindley v. Wells, 308 Mo. 1, 271 S.W. 48 (Mo. 1925)
A woman caught the heel of her shoe while alighting from a street car and injured herself. The trial court directed a verdict for the street car company. The supreme court reversed and remanded for a full trial.
Platform Shoes
(4 cases)
Brown v. McDonald's Corp., 428 So. 2d 560 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1983)
Girl wearing high-heeled platform shoes slipped and fell in restaurant. Court ruled that she slipped on thin film of grease. Damages in the amount of $18,020.95 were affirmed.
Johnson v. City of Chicago, 431 N.E.2d 1105, 103 Ill. App.3d 646 (Ill.App.1 1981)
Woman claimed she broke ankle stepping in hole in sidewalk; however, in hospital admittance form she said she fell off her platform shoes. Jury awarded her $22,603. The court of appeals reversed and remanded.
Thompson v. Blum's, 139 Cal. App. 2d 140, 293 P.2d 82 (Cal.App.Dist.2 1956)
A woman wearing "platform sole" shoes with high heels tripped and fell on the uneven, bubbly floor of a store. The jury awarded a total of $55,500, but the trial judge granted a motion for a new trial. The appeals court affired the order for a new trial.
Newell v. Arlington Hotel, 221 Ark. 215, 252 S.W.2d 611 (Ark. 11/17/1952)
A woman wearing "high heel platform sole shoes" tripped over a mat in a hotel. The jury found for the hotel, and the Supreme Court affirmed.
Flip-flops/Thongs
(34 cases)
Estes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 800 So.2d 1018 (La.App.Cir.5 2001)
A man wearing flip-flops and standing on a wet mat in the fish department of Wal-Mart stepped off the mat, slipped, and fell. A jury trial found Wal-Mart not liable, which the court of appeals affirmed.
Frame v. Allen, No. 01AP-698 (Ohio App.Dist 10 2001)
A man wearing flip-flops slipped and fell on a concrete garage floor after walking across wet grass. Summary judgment for the homeowner was affirmed.
Klostermeier v. In & Out Mart, No. L-00-1204 (Ohio App. Dist.6 2001)
A woman wearing flip-flops got one caught in a quickly closing automatic door at a convenience store, and fell. The trial court granted summary judgment to the convenience store, and to the installer of the door. The appeals court affirmed summary judgment with respect to the convenience store, but reversed with respect to the installer.
Hagopian v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 788 So.2d 1088 (Fla.App. Dist.4 2001)
A woman wearing flip-flops was injured in a supermarket when a Sprite bottle exploded off a shelf and cut her foot. The main issue in the trial was spoliation of evidence, since the supermarket destroyed the bottle pieces, so they were unable to determine whether the supermarket or the bottler was negligent. The trial court directed a verdict that spoliation was irrelevant. The appeals court reversed that, which then required a new trial on all issues. (There was also a contention that the woman may have simply dropped the bottle on her foot, but without the bottle, there was no way to possibly determine that.)
Trebing v. Fleming Companies, Inc., No. M1999-00473-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.App. 2000)
A woman wearing flip-flops slipped on pooled rainwater at the exit of a supermarket. Summary judgment for the supermarket was affirmed.
Dufour v. E-Z Serve Convenience Stores Inc., 731 So.2d 915 (La.App.Cir.5 1999)
A man slipped in a puddle in a convenience floor while wearing flip-flops. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of his suit.
Hartley v. Macon Bacon Tune, Inc. 227 Ga.App. 679, 490 S.E.2d 403 (Ga.App. 1997)
Hartley v. Macon Bacon Tune, Inc. 234 Ga.App. 815, 507 S.E.2d 259 (Ga.App. 1998)A man wearing flip-flops slipped and fell on a puddle of water and oil at a car repair garage. Summary judgment for the garage was affirmed by the appeals court. On remand from the Supreme Court, the judgment was reversed and remanded for a trial.
Grissette V. Thomas, 704 So.2d 1215 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1997)
A woman wearing flip-flops was slipped and fell on the concrete outside a gas station. A jury ruled against her; the appeals court affirmed.
Sherrell v. Food Lion, No. 01-A-01-9607-CV-00313 (Tenn.App. 1997)
A woman wearing flip-flops slipped on water on the floor of a supermarket. The jury found no negligence on the part of the woman; the appeals court affirmed.
Love v. The Waterbed Sleep Shoppe, 652 So. 2d 650 (La.App.Cir.1 1995)
A woman wearing flip-flops slipped on a wet floor while it was raining (the woman claimed to be wearing athletic shoes; other witnesses said otherwise). After a trial on the merits, the trial court dismissed the case, and the court of appeals affirmed.
Lindsey v. J. H. Harvey Co., 445 S.E.2d 810, 213 Ga. App. 659 (Ga.App. 1994)
A woman wearing flip-flops slipped and fell on the newly mopped floor of a store. Summary judgment for the store was affirmed, since the woman's ex-husband had warned her about the water earlier.
Carlson v. Board of Regents, 47 Ill. Ct. Cl. 171 (Ill.Ct.Cl. 1994)
A woman wearing rubber thongs slipped and fell on a wet area outside of a shower area in her college dormitory. She was awarded $100,000.
Downen v. Sinclair Oil Corp., 887 P.2d 515 (Wyo. 1994)
A woman wearing shower thongs slipped and fell in a truck stop shower. Summary judgment for the truck stop was affirmed.
Curties v. Hill Top Developers Inc., 14 Cal. App. 4th 1651, 18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 445 (Cal.App.Dist.5 1993)
A man wearing rubber thongs slipped and fell on a dewy or frosty hill outside his apartment. The jury applied "implied assumption of the risk" and found for the apartment. The appeals court reversed and remanded.
Bergeron v. Southeastern La. Univ., 610 So.2d 986 (La.App.Cir.1 1992)
A student wearing flip-flops slipped and fell on water at the entrance to a dormitory. The trial court awarded $35,000. The appeals court found the student 40% negligent for wearing the flip-flops (and other reasons) and reduced the award.
Borden v. Consumer Warehouse Foods, 601 So. 2d 976 (Ala. 1992)
A woman slipped and fell on the wet floor of a grocery store. She claimed to be wearing tennis shoes; store personnel claimed she was wearing flip-flops. Summary judgment for the store was reversed and remanded for a full fact-finding trial.
Durepo v. Adams, 958 F.2d 1242 (Me.Super. 1992)
A woman wearing flip-flops fell in a beauty salon, probably from putting on one between the wrong toes, and accidentally stepping on it with her other foot (although she disputed this and claimed the salon's furniture was too close together). The trial court entered judgment for the salon.
Stone v. K-Mart, No. 134 (Tenn.App. 1989)
A woman wearing flip-flops slipped and fell on a small wet spot at K-Mart. After the plaintiff presented her case, the trial judge directed a verdict for K-Mart. The appeals court affirmed.
Dulaney v. Jack-in-the-Box, Inc., No. C14-87-00594-CV (Tex.App. 1988)
A man wearing flip-flops slipped and fell in a restaurant on a rainy day. The jury awarded him nothing; the appeals court affirmed.
Conaway v. Roberts, 725 S.W.2d 377 (Tex.App.Dist.13 1987)
A woman wearing thongs on her riding mower may have had her foot slip off the brake, and ended up under the mower. This is a suit by the guy who rescued her, who was injured while doing so. In Texas, a rescuer injured by the negligence of the rescued can sue. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appeals court reversed and remanded for a full trial.
Rodriguez v. Piggly Wiggly Southern, 363 S.E.2d 291, 185 Ga. App. 79 (Ga.App. 1987)
A woman wearing flip-flops slipped and fell on a rainy-wet supermarket floor. Summary judgment for the supermarket was reversed, as there were genuine issues of material fact to be determined.
Dean v. Terrebonne Parish Police, 510 So. 2d 82 (La.App.Cir.1 1987)
A woman wearing flip-flops slipped and fell coming out of a courthouse, possibly on wet tile. A safety expert testified that "her unstable footwear" was the probable cause of the fall. The jury awarded $104,313.00 in damages, reduced by the finding that she was 22% negligent, but the trial judge then found no negligence by the Parish. The appeals court affirmed the judgment.
Cornforth v. Borman's, 148 Mich. App. 469, 385 N.W.2d 645 (Mich.App. 1986)
A woman wearing "rubber shower thongs" slipped and fell upon entering a grocery store on a rainy day. The jury found for the grocery store. The appeals court reversed and remanded based upon faulty jury instructions.
Bivalacqua v. Aube, 493 So. 2d 209 (La.App. 1986)
A woman fells down a back stairway of a house while wearing flip-flops (and was heard to say "these damn shoes"). The jury found the woman 85% negligent, and the homeowner 15% negligent, so the award was reduced accordingly. The appeals court affirmed the judgment, but increased the award slightly.
Mills v. Kemper Group Insurance, 498 So. 2d 1156 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1986)
A tipsy man wearing flip-flops went into the back room of a 7-11 and slipped on some rotten apples on the floor. In a jury trial, he was awarded $1050, but was found 90% negligent, reducing the award to $105. The appeals court affirmed.
Randall v. Feducia, 499 So.2d 458 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1986)
A woman wearing "thong sandals" fell on the curb outside her house. The city was found 50% negligent. The appeals court reversed, and ordered dismissal.
Wal-Mart Stores v. White, 476 So. 2d 614 (Ala. 1985)
A woman wearing flip-flops slipped and fell just inside the door of Wal-Mart on a rainy day. The trial court awarded her $75,000. The Supreme Court reversed and directed a verdict for Wal-Mart.
Hustead v. Rose's Stores Inc., 74 N.C. App. 563, 328 S.E.2d 835 (N.C.App. 1985)
A woman, while trying on flip-flops at a store, was startled and fell over (because the flip-flops were tied together!). The trial judge granted summary judgment for the store; the appeals court reversed and ordered a jury trial, so that a jury could decide relative negligence of the woman and the store.
Smith v. Winn Dixie Stores of La., 389 So.2d 900 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1980)
A woman wearing "rubber thongs" slipped and fell on a rainy day when entering a supermarket. The trial court dismissed the suit; the appeals court affirmed.
Eddlestone v. Travelers Insurance Co. , 230 So. 2d 463 (La.App.4 Cir. 1970)
A man wearing "rubber shower thong sandals" slipped in the rain while hurrying to enter a grocery store. The trial judge dismissed the case; the appeals court affirmed.
Coleman et ux. v. DeMoss, 246 N.E.2d 483, 144 Ind. App. 408 (Ind.App. 1969)
A woman, wearing flip-flops and with her arms full, fell and was injured at a ditch on rental property, and was awarded $15,000. Judgment affirmed.
Collins v. Kienow's Food Stores, 251 Or. 16, 444 P.2d 546 (Ore. 1968)
A woman wearing "rubber thongs" slipped and fell at the wet entrance of a grocery store. The trial court dismissed the suit; the appeals court reversed and remanded for a full trial.
Courtney v. City of Ferguson, 401 S.W.2d 172 (Mo.App. 1966)
A woman wearing rubber thongs fell and injured herself when they became stuck in soft tar in the roadway. The woman was awarded $6,300, which was affirmed by the appeals court.
The Country Club of Coral Gables v. McHale, 188 So. 2d 405 (Fla.App.Dist.3 1966)
A woman wearing "rubber thongs" slipped and fell on a wet spot as she was passing a dance-floor area near a pool. A jury awarded a total of $3500, which was affirmed by the appeals court.
Sandals (non flip-flop)
(34 cases)
Blain v. Cigna Corporation, 2003-Ohio-4022 (Ohio App. Dist.10 2003)
A woman caught the tip of her sandal on an uneven sidewalk of a shopping center. Summary judgment for the shopping center was affirmed.
Mazurek v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 303 A.D.2d 960, 757 N.Y.S.2d 425 (N.Y. App. 2003)
A woman wearing sandals slipped in a puddle at a Home Depot. The jury awarded $129,170.85. The appeals court reversed, instructing the trial court to examine whether the puddle was an open and obvious hazard.
Crichfield v. Grand Wailea Company, 93 Haw. 477, 6 P.3d 349 (Haw. 2000)
A woman slipped and fell on the grass of a resort while taking off her sandals. Summary judgment for the resort was reversed and remanded (as there were issues of material fact).
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Garcia, 30 S.W.3d 19, 30 S.W.3d 19 (Tex.App. 2000)
A woman wearing sandals slipped and fell when she fell on a jalapeño. She was awarded $75,000, which the appeals court affirmed.
Oliva v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 756 So.2d 444 (La.App. 2000)
A woman wearing "sponge sandals" slipped on a wet spot in a grocery store. Summary judgment for the grocery store was affirmed.
Wiegman v. Hitch-Inn Post of Libertyville, Inc., 308 Ill.App.3d 789, 721 N.E.2d 614, 242 Ill.Dec. 335 (Ill.App. 1999)
A woman wearing leather-soled sandals slipped and fell on wet tile at the bottom of stairs leading to a pool/sauna area. The jury awarded $65,525, reduced to $52,500 based on the woman's contributory negligence. The appeals court affirmed.
Boyer v. Circle K Corp., No. 38298-5-I (Wash.App.Div.1 1997)
A woman in a store fell after her sandal caught on something. Summary judgment for the store was reversed and remanded.
Tanner v. Brookshire Grocery Company, No. 29276-CA (La.App.2 Cir. 1997)
A woman wearing leather-soled sandals slipped on a brown liquid on the floor of a grocery store. The trial court ruled for the grocery store; the appeals court affirmed.
Lachico v. First National Bank Shares, No. 95-CA-2124 (La.App.1 Cir. 1996)
A woman wearing wooden-soled sandals slipped and fell on the wet floor of a bank. The trial court awarded $30,000. The appeals court affirmed.
Edwards v. K & B Incorporated, Inc., 641 So. 2d 1040 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1994)
A woman wearing sandals had the shelf of a drug store collapse and drop a jewelry box onto the top of her foot. The trial court awarded $7,700. The appeals court affirmed.
Daugherty v. Cross Marine, Inc., 598 So. 2d 595 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1992)
A deckhand, while wearing "a type of sandals", fell on a soapy deck and broke his arm. The case was about whether he was a "seaman" at the time, and which set of laws applied to his injury. However, the vessel owner also contended that he was partially blame for the accident for wearing those sandals. The trial court awarded the deckhand $90,000 and lost wages. The appeals court affirmed, but reduced the amount of lost wages.
Heeg v. Jewel Companies, 596 N.E.2d 765, 232 Ill.App. 3d 75, 173 Ill.Dec. 141 (Ill.App. Dist.1 1992)
A woman wearing sandals slipped and fell on green onion peels in a grocery store. The jury awarded $90,000 but the trial judge vacated the award. The appeals court reversed and reinstated the award.
Hobson v. Kroger Company, 419 S.E.2d 492, 204 Ga. App. 417 (Ga.App. 1992)
A five-year-old boy wearing sandals slipped on the wet floor where a Kroger employee was cleaning up a broken Sprite bottle. Summary judgment for Kroger was affirmed.
Crandell v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 580 So. 2d 967 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1991)
A woman wearing open-backed sandals slipped in a grocery store on a rainy day. The trial court dismissed her suit; the appeals court affirmed.
Wheat v. State Farm, 583 So. 2d 1 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1991)
A woman wearing sandals fell down some dilapidated concrete steps and was injured. After a confused verdict from the jury, the trial judge awarded $49,975.26, reduced by half due to contributory negligence. The appeals court affirmed, but modified the award to $79,975.26, still reduced by half.
This opinion also has a fine quote on contributory negligence: Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the plaintiff which falls below the standard to which he should conform for his own protection. . . . The standard of conduct to which the plaintiff must conform for his own protection is that of a reasonable man under the circumstances.
Jones v. Tsoukalas, No. 88C-AU-26 (Del.Supr. 1990)
A woman wearing leather-soled thongs (sandals) slipped and fell on a wet ramp leading to a restaurant. Motion for summary judgment denied, as there were issues of material fact regarding the condition of the ramp.
Weldon v. Hawkins, 539 N.E.2d 229, 183 Ill. App. 3d 525 (Ill.App. 1989)
A woman wearing open-toed sandals with a crepe sole tripped on some overgrown weeds, fell, and broke her ankle. The trial court directed a verdict for her landlord; the appeals court reversed.
Holguin v. Smith's Food King Properties Inc., 105 N.M. 737, 737 P.2d 96 (N.M.App. 1987)
A woman wearing sandals with rubber soles (flip-flops?) slipped and fell on the newly waxed floor of a grocery store. Summary judgment for the store was affirmed.
Santini v. Consolidated Rail, 505 N.E.2d 832 (Ind.App. 1987)
An 11-year old girl wearing sandals got a sandal caught in the third rail at a railroad crossing and was killed by a train. The jury found no liability by the defendants, and the appeals court affirmed.
Atkinson v. Kirchoff Enterprises, 351 S.E.2d 477, 181 Ga. App. 139 (Ga.App. 1986)
A woman wearing open-toed sandals had them punctured by a sharp object amongst construction debris at a store, which caused her to fall and be injured. Summary judgment for the store was reversed.
Bordelon v. Southern Louisiana Health, 467 So. 2d 167 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1985)
A woman wearing Dr. Scholl's exercise sandals slipped and fell on a wet, newly hosed ramp for a hospital emergency room. The trial court awarded $26,000, but reduced it by half due to contributory negligence. The appeals court upheld the award, but reversed the finding of contributory negligence.
Bell v. Westinghouse Electric, 483 A.2d 324 (D.C.App. 1984)
A woman wearing sandals on a escalator (of the DC Metro) had her heel get stuck. When it broke off, she fell all the way down the escalator. She won $65,000 from a jury, only to have the trial judge order a new trial. The appeals court reversed that, allowing the original award to stand.
Robinson v. Safeway Stores, 655 S.W.2d 617 (Mo.App. 1983)
A woman wearing "rubber-soled sandals" slipped just inside the door of a grocery store while it was raining. The jury awarded $140,000, but the trial judge ordered a new trial. The appeals court reversed on the new trial, and reinstated the original award.
Buckel v. Maison Blanche Corporation, 379 So. 2d 849 (La.App.4 Cir. 1980)
A woman wearing sandals was injured on an escalator (there is some dispute about whether the escalator grabbed the sandal, or whether the sandal just broke). The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appeals court affirmed.
Friedrich v. Department of Transportation, 586 P.2d 1037, 60 Haw. 32 (Haw. 1978)
A man wearing sandals with rubber soles (also called "slippers" in the opinion, which suggests that they may have been flip-flops), slipped in a puddle of water at the edge of a pier, and fell into the water, breaking his neck. The trial court ruled for the state (owner of the pier). The supreme court affirmed.
Repaskey v. Chicago Transit Auth., 9 Ill. App.3d 897, 293 N.E.2d 440 (Ill.App. Dist.1 1973)
A woman got her sandal caught in an escalator of the CTA. The trial court dismissed her case (as filed without providing formal notice to the CTA in a timely fashion). The appeals court affirmed.
Daben Realty Co. v. Stewart, 290 N.E.2d 809, 155 Ind. App. 39 (Ind.App. 1972)
A woman wearing sandals with 1-inch tapered heels slipped and fell on an overly-waxed floor. The jury awarded $47,000. The appeals court affirmed.
Family Dollar Stores v. Brown, 181 S.E.2d 100, 123 Ga. App. 359 (Ga.App. 1971)
A woman wearing sandals with a "small" heel tripped on an uneven spot on a store entrance ramp. The trial court did not grant the store summary judgment; the appeals court reversed, and granted the store summary judgment.
Cannamore v. Bi-State Development Agency, 469 S.W.2d 664 (Mo.App. 1971)
A woman fell getting off of a bus. She claimed to be wearing oxfords; the bus driver claimed she was wearing strap sandals. The jury awarded $9,000, which the trial court set aside. The appeals court ordered a new trial limited to liability only.
Friend v. Gem International, 476 S.W.2d 134 (Mo.App. 1971)
A woman wearing leather-soled sandals walked through a puddle from an air-conditioner, and then slipped and fell. The trial court awarded $6,000. The appeals court affirmed.
Torrence v. Sacred Heart Hospital, 251 So. 2d 899 (Fla.App.Dist.1 1971)
A woman wearing low-heel sandals slipped and fell on a newly-waxed hospital floor. Summary judgment for the hospital was reversed.
Hiner v. Hubbard, 240 Cal. App. 2d 63, 49 Cal. Rptr. 157 (Cal.App.Dist.1 1966)
A woman wearing sandals caught the lip of the sandals under the matting of a stairway and fell. The defendant (her landlords) claimed contributory negligence for the looseness of the sandals. The jury ruled against her. The appeals court affirmed.
Chambers v. City and County of Honolulu, 406 P.2d 380, 48 Haw. 539 (Haw. 1965)
A woman wearing low-heeled sandals fell in a hole in the pavement. The woman was awarded $15,000, which the supreme court affirmed.
Overby v. Union Laundry Co., 100 A.2d 205, 28 N.J.Super. 100 (N.J.Super.App.Div. 1953)
A woman wearing "barefoot sandals" (no socks) slipped and fell on the heavily-waxed floor of a laundry. Summary judgment for the laundry was affirmed. [The "barefoot sandals" were defined as "a leather sole with one strap between [the] first and second toe, and strap across [the] heel and over [the] instep."]
Other Shoes
(18 cases)
Hudak v. Valleyaire Golf Club, Inc., Median App. No. 3010-M (Medina Cty., Ohio, 2000)
Man wearing golf shoes with spikes slipped and fell on smooth tile at golf club restaurant. Summary judgment for the golf club was affirmed.
Krause v. Albrecht Grocery Store, Cuyahoga App. No. 74468 (Cuyahoga Cty., Ohio, 1999)
A woman fell in a parking lot when her shoe got caught in a hole there. Summary judgment for the store was affirmed.
Buffington v. Harbor Properties Inc., No. 38534-8-I (Wash.App.Div.1 1997)
A woman slipped and fell while walking down a ramp at a mall restaurant. The restaurant blamed the fall on slippery shoes, "people do, sometimes, wear slippery-soled shoes". Summary judgment for the restaurant was reversed, since there was some evidence that there was grease on the ramp.
Orlando Regional Medical Center v. Chmielewski, 573 So. 2d 876 (Fla.App.Dist.5 1990)
A man stepped on an anchor bolt in his shed, which pierced his rubber-soled shoes. This is a malpractice suit, since the emergency room doctor failed to discover that a piece of the rubber sole remained embedded in his foot, and subsequent infection ate away at the bone in his foot. The award for malpractice was affirmed by the appeals court.
Roberts v. Nashville, 958 F.2d 1242 (Tenn.App. 1989)
A woman wearing open-toed canvas shoes was walking on a city dock with many splinters when one of the splinters got caught between the sole of the shoe and her foot, causing her to fall (the splinter did not penetrate her foot). She and her husband were awarded $50,000, which was affirmed by the appeals court.
Collier v. Necaise, 522 So. 2d 275 (Ala. 1988)
After a hurricane, a 9-year old boy wearing tennis shoes stepped on a nail protruding from a board, and his foot got infected. Summary judgment for the property owner was affirmed.
Maddox v. Friday's Inc., 82 N.C. App. 145, 345 S.E.2d 690 (N.C.App. 1986)
A woman dancing in a restaurant/bar stepped on a broken glass and cut her foot near the strap of her shoe. Summary judgment for the restaurant was reversed and remanded for trial.
Hunt v. City Stores, 387 So.2d 585 (La. 1980)
A 12-year-old boy got his sneaker stuck in an escalator. The jury found for the boy, but the appeal was in regard to the liability of the manufacturer. The Supreme Court ruled that case against the manufacturer should not have been dismissed.
Pumo v. Foltynewicz, 82 Ill. App.3d 178, 402 N.E.2d 900 (Ill.App. Dist.1 1980)
A woman wearing "beach clogs" fell outside a store. (The woman denies that they were beach clogs; the defendants describes the shoes as "no straps at the heels and only a strap or two over the toe.") The jury ruled for the store. The appeals court affirmed.
Vance v. Miller-Taylor Shoe Co., 251 S.E.2d 52, 147 Ga. App. 812 (Ga.App. 1978)
A man sued a shoe store for selling him a shoe with slippery heels (metal plate on heel), causing him to fall. Summary judgment for the shoe store was affirmed.
Prophet v. S. H. Kress Co., 470 P.2d 487, 12 Ariz. App. 339 (Ariz.App.Div.1 1970)
A woman wearing loafers slipped and fell at a store. The jury found for the defendants. The appeals court reversed: "Most shoes can, to some degree, contribute to the fall of a person on a slippery floor as was indicated herein, but this does not mean that a person must walk barefoot to be free from contributory negligence in a slip and fall case."
Beauchamp v. Los Gatos Golf Course, 273 Cal. App. 2d 20, 77 Cal. Rptr. 914 (Cal.App.Dist.1 1969)
A woman wearing golf shoes with half-worn spikes slipped and fell on a cement veranda at a golf course. At the trial level, a motion for nonsuit was granted. The court of appeals reversed, saying that there were sufficient issues of material fact for a full trial.
Brittain v. Cubbon, 190 Kan. 641, 378 P.2d 141 (Kan. 1963)
A 10-year old boy playing at a demolition site stepped on a board containing a nail which pierced his shoe, eventually leading to tetanus. The trial court refused to dismiss the case, and the supreme court affirmed.
Steeno v. Wolff, 109 N.W.2d 452, 14 Wis. 2d 68 (Wis. 1961)
A woman fell when the strap of her shoe caught on a protruding prong of a metal grate in front of a coffee shop. Summary judgment for the shop was affirmed.
Kopka v. The Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, 91 A.2d 232, 371 Pa. 444 (Pa. 1952)
A man was injured when he stepped into a hole dug onto his property without his permission. While falling, his shoes was pierced by a briar, puncturing his foot. The jury awarded $11,000, which the supreme court reduced to $7,000.
Harsha v. Renfro Drug Co., 77 S.W.2d 584 (Tex.Civ.App. 1934)
A woman slipped and fell in a drug store. The jury established that she was negligent in wearing shoes with worn down heels on one side and that those shoes contributed to the accident. Verdict for the drug store was affirmed.
Theodore v. J. G. McCrory Co., 17 La. App. 684, 137 So. 352 (La.App. 1931)
A man wearing a shoe with a hole at the ball stepped on a splintering wooden floor and got a splinter requiring medical attention. The trial court awarded him $150. The appeals court affirmed.
Pittenger v. Town of Hamilton, 85 Wis. 356, 55 N.W. 423 (Wis. 1893)
A girl stepped on an old, rusty nail protruding from a boardwalk. The nail penetrated her shoe and she died 15 days later (tetanus?). The Town was held liable; the supreme court affirmed.