I believe your article should be a warning about flip flops, sandals, shoes that tie, etc. not specifically Crocs, which is one of thousands of shoe brands. There have always been elevator accidents. Why now is Crocs the villain. Sounds like law firms smell some $, or short buyers of some stocks are good at getting all the negative press they can for a product. Care is always paramount on escalators.

The article on CROCS is right on. CROCS knows of 230+ reports of CROCS, not flip flops, getting caught in escalators and hurting children. Agnes' comments misses the point by a long shot. Look at the recent article in Boulder County Business Report if you have any questions regardng just how CROCS has hidden th truth.

Don't blame the shoes because people don't pay attention to their children....

Interesting comments. The first commenter sounds like the CEO for Crocs. "Okay people are getting hurt but let's blame those who buy the product and those whose job it is to help consumers guard against injury." This comment is right out of that commercial with Ed Beggley Jr. The argument totally ignores wearing nothing more than a plastic milk jug as a shoe that is supposed to protect your foot, not injure it. Let corporate America make billions or at least hundreds of millions in profit while ignoring what is wrong with the product. So Agnes, what do you do for a living? Perhaps you didn't short the stock and don't like blame being placed where it should be so that you too can make a healthy profit. As for number three commenter, you must not have children or have perfect children. Which is it? If you have the ability to control all behavior of all children you're sitting on a gold mine of knowledge. What business are you into?

Agnes: True, Crocs are not the only dangerous shoe on the market. What about the shoes with the little wheels on the bottom that children find so appealing? Crocs are not the only shoe manufacturer who has been sued for producing a product that is dangerous to the wearer; however, my post only focuses on this specific incident with this specific manufacturer.
ModF: I'm sure that there is a percentage of parents who don't pay enough attention to their children while using escalators. It is also probable that a number of parents could be more selective with the shoe that they choose to put on their children's feet.

This is directed to Steve Lombardi. Your comments are typical...most lawyers remind me of the tow truck drivers sittng ever so patiently on the side of the busy roads....waiting to devour the remains of those unsuspecting victims. You guys are nothing more than cockroaches at the best of times. Just to enlighten you on a couple of issues. First, there have been many reported accidents that took place on an escalator...items involved...long coats, shoe laces, jeans, long hair, scarfs...you get the idea. Now, in your infinite wisdom...what's the one common thread here? Now, I knew even a guy like you would get this one...it's not that difficult. Second, Lawyers are great at applying blame...probably better than anyone else...shame on you..trying to pass this almight buck..give your head a shake..with you vultures, it's always about blame...it's how you thieves make your money! Now, this is just my opinion, but I'm sure many will agree with me...CEO of Crocs...that's your best retort..you are a funny funny man!

So if the child wasn't wearing any shoes would they be injured. I would think yes. So is it the escalator companies fault? Frivilous lawsuits only hurt companies. If you tripped and knocked your teeth out is the shoe companies fault because you weren't paying attention to where you were walking. Don't blamme the shoe,escalators are dangerous no matter what type of shoe you are wearing.

Lets not blame the shoe manufacturer (Crocs in these cases) for these entrapments. And lets not blame Nike, New Balance, Converse, and the many other tennis shoe manufacturers for these types of accidents. Nor should the riding public (especially minors) be blamed. The fault lies with the escalator manufacturers who have known for decades that they have an inherently defective product due to its design - namely the gap at the side of the escalator step. Patents were issued in the United States, Canada and Europe in 1983, 1985, 1987 & 1988 (US No. 4,413,719 & 4,519,940) for a product known as the Step Safety Sideplate invented by Carl J. White, now of Montrose, CO which eliminates this gap and prevents these accidents from occurring. In addition, you should find blame with the ASME A17.1 Elevator/Escalator Code Committee for failing to adopt standards to close the gap; blame the manufacturers legal departments for trying to place blame on 2, 3, 5 year old kids, etc. No one want to put the blame on faulty design. Go figure. Crocs has a great product and are being made the fall guy for a defective product. Go after Otis, Montgomery-KONE, etc. - they're the real culprits behind these entrapments.

David-since 1985 carl white has been pushing his device, but what do you know, nobody has listened for 23 years. That said, if CROCS get sucked into escalators and CROCS knows the inductry wont do what you claim they should have done, then how hard is it to put a warning tag on the shoe? Watch what happens when a croc makes contact with a hard surface..put your hand in your kids croc and rub it against the wall-tell me if it is the same reaction as a sneaker or shoe--it is not, and the suck in effect happens to quick for the child to get the foot out..wake up people, its not lawsuit crazed money grubbers but rather duped educated parents by a corporation that cares only for itself--belive it or not, we need lawyers to expose these things for what they are--let your kid have his foot sucked in and ripped open by an escalator and see if changes your tune!

As someone who actually was involved in an escalator accident (when I was a child of 5 in the 1940's); I really have to say that truthfully it was probably more my mother's fault for not keeping an eye on me better at Macy's. I have a large scar on my leg; but, that's life. Things happen; it was just one of life's little mishaps.

Dear Steven L. I was shocked when I read your rude response to my comment. I did not defend any shoe, I merely stated the truth that many types of shoes or accessories can get caught in the old style escalators. This is common knowledge. Then I realized you are the managing partner in the injury law firm I find it suspect that a financial page would publish your advertisement (column by Justin) as a fact. It is merely an opinion, and a very foolish one at that. Your lawsuits are not to help people but to put as many people as possible out of work. Let's keep suing until we have no private companies left. My elderly friend tripped on an escaltor. Can we sue? Last comments from me...

All: In some ways most of these comments are shameful in the way they pander to a corporate culture that long ago abandoned your families. I can see there is a lot of work to do here today.

Vince: Instead of trying to derail the argument with name calling how about using facts. I don’t know how you can describe my comments as “typical” and then generalize about who I am and how that relates to a tow truck driver. Just wearing fatigues and driving a Hummer doesn’t make you a soldier. Neither does your reciting the corporate mantra that all trial lawyers are somehow greedy because they care about safety is somehow wrong for American business. In point of fact in the 1980’s corporate America gave up on you, I and all the working men and women in America. No longer are they loyal to you. So your trying to be loyal to them is a waste of your energy. My relatives earned over $20 USD per hour for factory work. What do you earn today?

When you get personal with a lawyer you don’t know it does nothing for your argument. You may call me as many names as your vocabulary will allow, but in the end your argument falls short of having any real meaning. Your argument is purely emotional and omits fact. (e.g., arguments are typical, most lawyers remind me of… devour the remains of unsuspecting victims, cockroaches… enlighten you… in your infinite wisdom …even a guy like you would get this one … vultures … make your money … )

Your answer is all too emotional and frankly, a personal attack which I don’t allow on this site. But today I’m going to give you a break and leave yours posted because I believe you are capable of more depth in reasoning. You go do some reading, talk with a few injured people, and then you can work on fact rather than fiction and deliver something worth reading that actually is defensible. You are obviously not a lawyer. You have no clue on what we are seeing in terms of injuries and how it affects people’s lives over the long run. You want to believe that by speaking the corporate mantra against lawyers that somehow you’re saving the American manufacturing industry. You’re not and they could care less about you and your family’s future economic welfare.

So please just answer my question: Like I asked, what do you do for a living?

Hello there David: I grew up in Rhode Island, Bristol to be exact and many of my relatives worked making the Converse sneakers that Larry Bird wore and every kid ran the bases in. This is a nicely stated argument which includes references to the patent numbers of real solutions that prevent personal injury and I believe demonstrates what is wrong with the way our industry works. I have to wonder why the Elevator/Escalator Code Committee failed to ever adopt a safety standard that would close off the gap. You may have better incite into that conundrum than I so I’ll ask, why did they not act?

I will say this though about Crocs, I don’t own a pair and never will. They look horribly stupid to me. Combine them with most floor finishes and you have an accident waiting to happen. If the kid would take the burger and shake out of his mouth long enough to do something other than play video games he'd be fit enough to play soccer and wouldn't probably be wearing plastic do-nothing-look-dumb shoes. He'd be in an athletic shoe.

Joe: I have a comment for you; and mostly they are questions. Please define what you mean by frivolous lawsuits? Is a frivolous lawsuit one in which you’re not a party? Or one in which your wife, daughter, son, mother, father or other close relative isn’t the injured party for which you’re being asked to pay a medical bill? Do you really believe that lawyers on a contingent fee pay basis bring “frivolous lawsuits?” Come on your smarter than that. If they do then how are they getting rich because according to most dictionaries frivolous means worthless? And one-third of zero was always in my math class still zero. If it’s greedy lawyers filing frivolous lawsuits to make zero pay, how then are they greedy? Are they greedy because they want all the worthless lawsuits available for the taking? Hmmm….

As Inigo Montoya said to Vizzini in The Princess Bride, “I do not think that word means what you think it means.”

Agnes: Allow me to apologize for being so direct. I just came off Mt. Elbrus and the mountain environment was pretty harsh. We had to make some life and death decisions so upon my return to civilization I’m not really civilized. Besides, seeing what society looks like in a historically communist country that doesn’t allow legal responsibility through a civil court system demonstrated to me once again where we are heading. Pretty soon nothing will work and we’ll have no decent jobs or standard of living. Then we can close our eyes to the government officials that regularly bribe and extort from sightseers. But we will all be happily unemployed and walking no where in Crocs. Normally after I return home Barbara has to retrain me to be nice to people. So please allow me to apologize. I’ll ask her to do a better job.

I am the managing partner; in fact I own the law firm. It took me 27+ years to actually develop this kind of frankness and the right to publish my opinion about safety and how it is affecting your children and mine. Justin is my employee and a damn good one at that. He’s a conservative thinker from Missouri; that after working for me for one summer and seeing wrong-side surgeries, wrong procedure surgeries and the manner in which injured workers are treated without dignity or loyalty is beginning to appreciate what I’ve put up with for those 27+ years I’m proud to be a lawyer. And so you can all call me whatever names make you feel better; but I know that the day you are injured I’m the best friend you’ve got and the only person that cares about you and your family’s economic future. At that point you have no money, no resources to hire a lawyer, no money to hire the experts you need to prove your case, no knowledge of how to get the job done and little hope that anyone in the corporate world sees you as anything more than a nuisance. Yes, I’ll still be proud to hear you say that now I’m your "greedy lawyer". Or is that too frank for you?

Do I want to put people out of work? No. Do lawsuits help people? You bet they do. Do I make a living off of the skills I’ve honed over those 27+ years? You bet I do. Should I apologize for being a capitalist? Not on your life, because it allows me to take on corporate American when you need me to do so. If I continue to sue corporate America will there be no jobs left? No they will continue to be here and there and still hurting your relatives and my own. Do you really think they are leaving American soil over lawsuits being filed? It’s about cheap labor and that has nothing to do with legal responsibility. It's about the bottom line, one called net profit and the three larges expenses are more than likely, labor, rent, raw materials and advertising expenses.

Do you know my father died at age 37 from lung cancer? Five kids to raise and no life insurance. My mother was a seamstress. At 80 she tells me she works four jobs. Even if you don’t, she loves me, even though I’m a lawyer.

I really wish you wouldn’t stop commenting. I can see in what you write that you’re afraid, that you fear the demise of corporate America. See what the politicians have been using for arguments is working on good and honest people like you. Fear. They preach fear. Fear of everything and everyone that is foreign, except the cheap exploited workers to which they take advantage. No use in alienating those that paint cheap toys with lead paint. If you were getting paid $1.00 per hour as a factory worker, would it make you feel any better if those toy painting jobs were here in America and you were being asked to close your eyes to the lead in the paint that your hands and fingers applied to the surface, knowing some little kid would soon be putting it in their mouth and heading to a life of lower brain function? Fear, fear and more fear. Fear begets fear. Fear terrorists, fear social security going bankrupt, and fear war, fear, fear, fear and more fear mongering. If you are in fear they can make you believe anything. Do you doubt it? Let me prove it to you. You answer this one question for me.

Question: If America hasn’t one dollar to deposit into the Social Security fund to balance it for our generation, then how come we have over $3,000,000,000.00 (billion) to spend every month on bombs and bullets?

The only thing you should fear is our own ignorance and willingness to believe irrational thinking while corporate America gets rich.

Think that fear doesn’t affect your ability to think rationally, then answer me this question:

Question #2: If the gasoline supply line is six months long, why does a news story that implies a shortening supply at some unknown time in the future within a time period of less than 24 hours affect the price at the tank?

You should not be offended by my frankness or directness. You should be asking politicians to be so frank and direct with their reasoning.

One more question that I’ve been pondering and haven’t yet figured out an answer. Maybe you can help me.

Question #3: Why do our children who won’t wear the same clothes for two consecutive seasons adorn their bodies with permanent tattoos?

Answer that question and buy you lunch. By the way from what state do you hail and what do you do for a living?

Steve,

In your response to several emails written, you start off by saying that "most of the comments are shameful"....a little bit of the "pot calling the kettle black" wouldn't you say? From where I stand, you set the bar for proper protocol just a little too high. All this coming from of all people...a Lawyer! One of the main reasons, we as a nation are victims to the corporate backlash simply put, is because of the legal profession. You as a lawyer know damn well, it doesn't matter who's right or wrong and please,spare us all from you taking us on a tour of the moral high ground. In the end, it's all about getting the client what he or she is paying for...hell, we see it all the time in our justice system...is it not the reason she wears the blindfold? And to add to my previous comment, and to answer your observation. Yes, I do "get emotional"...don't you? and please don't give me the proper place and time for everything...we are humans...getting emotional is completely normal...some call it passion, while others would refer to it as emotion. Either way, it's what separates us from the common mammal. In closing, when you start offering your 2 cents, I would think long and hard about the "how" and "what" defines you as a person before offering your analysis...I think you had better stick to the law, and save the dog and pony show for where it belongs.

You're all really stupid. Get over it already.

And McDonalds made me fat!! Parents should pay more attention to their kids on the escalators. Notice adults don't have these problems? Any flip flop on a kids foot would have the same problem.

Steve: In response to your question, the ASME A17.1 Elevator/Escalator Committee is comprised almost entirely of individuals who work for the escalator manufacturers. The few independent consultants and former employees of the manufacturers have little to no voice in how the rules are created, reviewed, adopted, submitted, etc. simply because they are outnumbered. Those who work for the manufacturers are salaried and attend the ASME meetings as paid employees with all of their expenses covered by their respective companies. Trips to ASME meetings (which are held all over the country) are nothing more than mini-vacations for these folks. The independent members must pay for all of their expenses personally and many times cannot make the meetings due to time away from their businesses and the costs associated with these junkets! Furthermore, it is my belief that the goal of this (and probably most industry controlled committees) is to impede the process of making a product safer. When you think about it, does it not make sense to a multi-billion dollar corporation (an example is seen in Otis Elevator Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of United Technologies) to spend a few bucks a year (relatively speaking) to slow down, stop, loosen or repeal safety rules and regulations and/or stop, blockade or malign non-industry designed and developed safety products (aka: N.I.H. Syndrome - Not Invented Here) due to the potential as well as real cost to comply with new rules that would make a product safer? Engineering and tooling costs are enormous. If you can find a rule making bureaucracy that you can control (collectively as an industry - some might call it collusion) that will slow the pace of safety reforms for the sake of your bottom line profitability, what better way to say publicly that you're a part of the solution while you are in fact the cause of the problem! I would encourage you to check with ASME in NYC and get a list of their A17.1 Committee members (past and present). If interested, you might cross-check the ASME A17.1 Committee membership with that of NEII (National Elevator Industry, Inc. - the trade organization/association for the elevator & escalator industry. To me, we seem to have here what might be more commonly referred to as a "good 'ole boy network"!

There is no such thing as a stupid shoe, just stupid people who wear shoes. You people have way too much time on your hands.

Justin,

The title of your article is misleading. Did you short before you wrote? Furthermore, this information came out over a year ago. No news here. Is your company hiring? That way I can pull up old articles and print them as my own some time later.

David: Your analysis is right on the money. Back-in-the-day, as my son is so fond of saying to me, we had many grain auger accidents in which young farmers were losing their limbs due to poorly designed drive shaft protections. The auger industry fought us tooth-and-nail about improving the design protections. They too took over the very inudstry organizations put in place to protect people from unreasonable industry. It became a game of them saying their were no set standards promulgated while stonewalling any progress on design standards. They kept paying the claims without regard to whether or not it made sense. Then someone somewhere smartened up and changed the standards to actually protect the young farmers. And there you have it I haven't seen a claim in over ten years.

I'm not sure why normal everyday, intelligent consumers would resist this or the lawyer efforts in trying to protect the public. Perhaps it's jealousy over what they perceive all the lawyers are making for incomes. If that be the case, I say go to law school yourself and do the same.

David your comments I consider to be from someone who cares. Keep up the good work! Any chance you want to write a blog piece on this subject? Steve

Now allow me to say one more thing before leaving today for a deposition. Those of you who post without using your real name should ask yourselves why that is. I have to wonder. Are you afraid someone might read what you've said and attribute it to you? Are you ashamed of what you're saying or just don't have the confidence in the position you've taken? Or do you have a financial interest in the subject and don't want anyone to know that may be prejudicing your opinions? Whichever it is, when you don't disclose your identity it waters down the impact of what you have to say. Real lawyers don't have the luxury of hiding behind a pseudonym. We live and die by our reputations that go along with our real names.

Its not the Crocs. I have had crocs for years and never had mine caught in an escalator. I wear nothing else. I know it is the parents not watching their children. Parents no a days don't watch their children they are to busy doing everything else in their lives

I believe we can all thank Stella Liebeck for the "nothing is ever my fault" attitude held by way too many people these days. Thanks to the lawyers that opened up the dam of frivolous by representing a woman who spilled coffee on her lap.

Oops, Hit enter too early (my own fault, or was it the computer manufacturers?). As a parent of three boys who are spending their second summer in Crocs I have to say I like the shoe for what it is, a simple, easy to clean, ugly, go anywhere foot accessory. My kids have never had an issue with them that they haven't experienced in any other type of shoe. I'd like to know the number of shoelace-in-escalator injuries there were prior the advent of Crocs? Were shoe lace manufacturers sued because they didn't have warning labels not to use unless double knotted? If the shoe is sized properly and the wearer (or guardian) is attentive to the surroundings there should be no problem.

Brad: You have no clue about what the McDonald's lawsuit was about or how it occurred, because if you did you would not be belittling Mrs. Liebeck, the injuries she suffered or the manner in which McDonald's executed on it's business model. Do you even know how hot the coffee was she was served? According to McDonald's own expert testimony the coffee was so hot it was not edible. It was so hot that when on skin it would melt human tissue. Frivilous? Maybe in your lap but not mine. I've written on this subject before and would invite you to review my commentary under the Iowa market blawg. You're mistaken in your assumptions about what that case was all about. You don't understand the restaurant business and you understand even less about the law. If you are grandstanding for McDonalds on this one you're showing how little you know about the facts. I'd suggest you educate yourself more before opening your mouth and inserting your foot.

Oh and Brad, one more thing. If you truely feel that Crocs are safe and it's all just the parent's fault when their children are injured, then please by all means provide your full name and contact information. I'm sure you'll want to make sure the Croc lawyers have a clear case of assumption of risk if your children should be so unlucky as to be injured in a way you or your wife ever anticipated. Or is that not a risk you're willing to assume?

Dawn: As a lawyer I'm truly befuddled by your generalization that "I know it is the parents not watching their children. Parents no a days don't watch their children they are to busy doing everything else in their lives." How can you make such an assumption when you don’t know the facts about any given incident? For instance: What are the facts of the case; How was the child injured; What part of the escalator caused the pinch point; How well did the shoes fit; Was the child running, standing still or walking; Where were the adults; Who was supervising; Were they carrying anything; Were they late for a connection at the airport; Was the escalator under repair; How long ago were the Croc’s purchased; What was their condition; Was there anything wrong with the escalator; Had others been injured?

There are too many unknowns for you to make such brash generalizations about every instance of injury and then to cast blame en-masse. As lawyers we work with fact specific instances for every case. We don’t have the privilege of prejudicial thought to draw generalizations. Lay people like to generalize until it is they who sit across the desk from the lawyer telling us all about their personal injuries; then they wish that all the generalizations would stop because for whatever reason their case must be different. “No, no don’t apply that tort-deform to me! It was never intended to hurt me! No please no.” Of course there are those who are just angry because they had no case and as my mother was fond of saying, “Misery loves company.”

Hopefully this isn’t you.

Do you sue a car manufacturer because the car doesn't come with a warning that says "Buying this vehicle greatly increases your chances of serious injury or death."? No. So lay off of Crocs. Too many lawyers in this country with nothing to do + uneducated ireesponsible people = bad for companies trying to compete in the market.

Ramon: No and no. Several questions for you to answer:

1. "Too many lawyers in this country with nothing to do..." Really, how would you know that? Of the “too many lawyers” name just three with nothing to do?

2. I wasn’t aware that to use the court system in this country a person had to have achieved a certain level of education. So how about if you name three "uneducated ireesponsible people" who you know has filed a lawsuit. Please provide county and state of venue along with docket numbers.

3. You didn't say the word "frivolous" but I figure we're going there. If frivolous means worthless, how many worthless cases does a lawyer have to try to make $1,000,000.00 in fees? If you know of cases that are "frivolous" please identify those companies and how much of our money they wasted paying claims on each "frivolous" case.

And exactly what business are you in?

Steve: Thanks for your comments. I do care what happens to people (young and old) who ride escalators. These machines have hurt and maimed thousands of people over the last century and even though the manufacturers know how to resolve many of the inherent dangers that exist, it seems to always come down to them blaming the riding public vs. taking responsibility for correcting the design defects and/or invoking the N.I.H. Syndrome as a reason to maintain the status quo. Trust me, their pockets are much deeper than yours (as an attorney for any victim of an escalator accident) and their philosophy is to simply bleed you and/or your client dry (depending on the case and if you've taken it on a contingency basis). There's much more to this but as with in most safety related issues, the manufacturer of the defective product does a cost/benefit analysis and then makes their decision - fix the defect or leave it alone and counter any claims by blaming the user. While that may work fine for some products where the user bears a larger responsibility, an escalator is a public conveyance and as such is subject to a higher standard of care by the owner and, in my opinion, the manufacturer (as related to the users - namely the public). As to writing a blog piece on this subject, time doesn't currently permit me to do that, but I'll continue to follow this one as the Crocs issue, as well as other soft soled footwear becoming entrapped in an escalator when remedies to a defective design, are readily available, really grates on me!

Lombardi, Lombardi....You don't have a good argument. Escalators are dangerous, just as revolving doors, closing elevator doors, etc. can all be dangerous. Be a prudent parent. Understand the risks, then mitigate them! Why not take the stairs or the elevator if you feel they're less dangerous? Be prudent, just as you would if your child had on a long loose scarf, etc. Your attempt to refute everyone that disagrees with you is typical of a prejudiced liability attorney.

John H: Thank you for the comment. I'm going to take you back to being a first year law student in torts. And next week I will look into the details of a few of these incidents to see how they occurred, specifically. And then we'll see how right or how wrong your assumptions prove to be. You won't have any problem with that will you? You are after the truth aren't you? I liked your comment right up until you started name calling ["prejudiced liability attorney"] and making up terms to sound important while knowing not what you're talking about. The other readers may have been fooled but not me. I'll invite you to look up the facts of any given case and then argue both sides, yes the injured's as well as the manufacturer. Because that's what real attorneys have to do. We aren't allowed to make up the rules or the facts. The argument is ours but the facts are in the record. If we look at the facts it should show us if the parents were "prudent" in controlling their children or not. Tort law requires a reasonable man standard, not a prudent parent standard, but for your sake use the prudent parent standard, but first define what it means to be a prudent parent. Go ahead I'll await your definition, but please have authority for the definition you choose. And if other's who like playing the role of lawyer wish to join in by all means please do.
Professor Lombardi
Fenway School of Law
We use only Green Monster Text Books!