A good pair of quality shoes cost money!

It would have been cheaper for Debra Morway to upgrade her shoes than to spend money on a pointless lawsuit. We have dumb people in this country.

To discourage frivolous lawsuits, we need a loser-pays rule. If you lose your case, you should pay for it.

In the end, Walmart will probably elect to settle because its still a lot cheaper than taking their chances with a jury. Morway may be smiling all the way to a fatter bank account but the rest of us will pay for it in the long run in not being able to buy what we want.

No wonder people hate lawyers!

NormanF on September 6, 2013 at 5:42 pm

Off topic but maybe you can weigh in on it. Is DeWayne Wickham, the black liberal Democrat who is an oped writer for USA Today, invoking anti-Israel and anti-Semitic conspiracies here in his column arguing against intervention in Syria? It really does seem to me that he is blaming the drive to attack Syria on Jews.

I hope Madam Schlussel gets a chance to see and weigh in on this before the Jewish Sabbath. Not a Zionist or anything like that, but for goodness sakes to have a lead columnist of a major newspaper overtly impugn Jewish politicians and Israel with this “Jewish lobby” conspiracy type stuff is amazing. How did this column even make it past the editorial board at USA Today, who is supposed to screen out anti-Semitic and other bigoted content? And I am really disappointed in Wickham. He may be a liberal Democrat, but I have never seen anything with anti-Semitic undertones from the guy before now.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/09/02/dewayne-wickham-on-obama-and-syria/2754355/

Gerald on September 6, 2013 at 5:59 pm

We have seen far too many of these “Payday” lawsuits. Judges should act as the gatekeepers to keep such garbage out.

Worry01 on September 6, 2013 at 6:13 pm

While Dr Scholl may not look attractive or fashionable, the whole point of them is about being comfortable. But of course, mileages vary, and in the event of them not meeting the expectations, stop wearing them & either exchange or refund.

It’s funny how people who always proclaim the superiority of the Europeans won’t adapt one European practice that makes sense in this case – Loser pays!

Infidel on September 6, 2013 at 7:01 pm

Even if you bought the shoes and didn’t like them or they gave you a problem, wouldn’t any retard simply stop wearing them and not buy them again?

jerry on September 6, 2013 at 8:38 pm

“Oh, and she also says she has lost career opportunities . . . all because of some sandals.”

…yeah, well, show up for a job interview in said sandals, PJ’s, curlers in your hair and a cigarette dangling from your lips… what would you expect?

@Infidel @ 7:01 pm: “Loser Pays” should be the law, but imagine all the lawyers out of work?..Unthinkable! Unemployment rates would go through the roof! 😉

theShadow on September 6, 2013 at 9:58 pm

1st. Is this article about a silly judge really suppose to impugn the president? Come on, its really foolish thing to just blame blame blame. Just foolish. Im sure the judge is qualified but he’s allowing a silly case to proceed, ok, so lets blame President Barack, lol, while he’s dealing with World War 3 potential. Quack.
2nd. Skunky some days your posts are just inane. Gerald asked a good question, and you answer with complete absurdness. You do your intelligence and quick wit such a disservice harping like you do at times. Some days you can be so Underwhelming but you think you’re being sharp. Be still sometimes and think before you answer. Africa? who brought up Africa, Skunky sometimes you need to just Shut IT.
Hopefully someone answers Geralds question with a cogent thought, unlike Skunky

Big D on September 7, 2013 at 12:35 am

Black or Fat I presume.

pat on September 7, 2013 at 12:52 am

Her career probably consists of drawing welfare.

RT on September 7, 2013 at 1:46 am

Anybody with a hundred dollars and a bad attitude can sue anyone for any reason regardless of how insane the claim is. Todays legal system really is Alice in Wonderland!

who knows? on September 7, 2013 at 9:30 am

I’ve read some amusing articles about the man behind Dr. Scholl who started his footwear and insole empire after being insulted by how horrible everyone else’s products were. His motto?

“Early to bed, early to rise, work like hell, and advertise!”

luagha on September 7, 2013 at 10:46 am

Remember the same judge will retire and will want to be an “Arbitrator” and is looking for clients. Not letting the lawsuit dismissed, both sides attorneys have a good income flow. The client be damned. The final settlement will include lawyer fee for the Plaintiff while d the defendant attorney gets paid regardless. In the meantime the judge insured at least two new clients for the future.

You be the judge what the problem is?

Steve Gardality on September 7, 2013 at 10:55 am

I attempted to review the cause of action but could not do so. It is just a case of how desperate some personal injury sharks will stoop. Most ambulance chasers actually do not know how to litigate a case and strictly rely on just using a few letters and filing a complaint in hopes of settlement.

There is one thing Walmart can do and that is to defend a frivolous lawsuit; but in my view, the case should never have even progressed to the pleading stage. Did the opposition institute a general demurrer or summary judgement? If so, what was the ruling?

I would venture to guess that the petitioner is on contingency. This means that she still has to bear costs. No ambulance chaser would advance those for a case that is a dawg.

AR on September 7, 2013 at 11:46 am

OK, I read the complaint filed with the court and have a couple of comments:

1) The allergen in question, PPDA, is commonly found in hair dye. I’m at a loss to figure out how this allergen could possibly be used in wooden shoes, which is what Dr. Scholls sandals are. The only thing I can figure that would have the dye in it is the leather strap.

2) I would think that a “reasonable person,” suffering from contact dermatitis from the alleged dye in the strap would STOP WEARING THE STUPID SHOES!!! Personally, I would take them back to the store. Instead, according to the complaint, the plaintiff CONTINUED to wear the shoes and continued to suffer the contact dermatitis. Now I don’t know about you, but I find most women’s shoes to be uncomfortable. If I buy a pair of shoes, wear them once and have a problem with them, I TAKE THEM BACK to the store. I do not continue to wear them! Now I have NEVER had a pair of shoes cause my feet to break out in a rash, but if I did, I certainly wouldn’t wear them a second time.

3) According to the sites I found through Google, some people have such a severe allergic reaction to PPDA that they swell up and require medical attention. Benedryl cream or capsules should take care of that swelling, along with hydrocortisol – ALL available over the counter. Unless, of course, you’re so stupid that instead of dealing with the rash you keep exposing yourself to the allergen.

4) How on EARTH can having contact dermatitis on your FEET prevent you from getting a job? You might itch, but if I had any kind of rash when I went to an interview, I would cover that area of my body – easily done in her case by wearing SHOES!!!

5) I looked up this woman’s address online (publicly available) and she lives in a pretty low-rent area of Pontiac. Sounds like someone is looking for a payday via the courts. The federal judge (being an Obama appointee) is probably allowing this dog to go through the system because WalMart is one of the defendants.

MIGirl on September 7, 2013 at 12:24 pm

So NOW can I sue ONE DIRECTION ???!!!!!!!!!!!???????

john on September 7, 2013 at 2:12 pm

John, of course is correct about India. I won’t respond (or even completely read…) the post by the CrAzEd Indian (Ghee, not Land-O-Lakes…) but John posted the most well-known of the heinous gang-rapes that happened in India (recently). I can assure you there have been more than 10 since that heinous crime…and the “minor” received a virtual slap on the wrist.

DS will delete non-sequitur his nonsense when she returns. That’s all that needs to be known.

I really get such a kick out of how I annoy so many dopes. They hate me but can’t stop reading what I contribute. Unlike me, who gets bored easily and ignores the dumbest of the dumb with ease.

That said, I am LOLing at his special name for me. It’s like my Japanese nickname and I promise to use it if I ever visit Japan. They are known for their unique eccentricities. It’ll fit right in. Konnichiwa, bitches! 😛

Skunky on September 7, 2013 at 5:27 pm

Good, everybody should have to go to court for the stupid reasons that we have in this country. I have had an attempted suit over a patient that I never even saw. Then I defended several VA doctors in Federal court over the fact that they did not prescribe a low cholesterol diet to a heart patient. In the course of things I used the Federal information on cholesterol to show that lipids have nothing to do with heart disease and diets do nothing to promote health. I won. Then I am going as a witness to court for a case that is 16 years old, for which I have no idea as to what is going on. On the flip side, I have testified against doctors that clearly committed malpractice, but the juries were so stupid that they could not convict. One was were a doctor injected air into a patient, resulting in his death, but the jury could not understand the process. This despite hours of explanation. As they say, being placed on a jury is a bad thing, it means you are one of the less intelligent people in the community (lawyers will not allow a person that can think). Our judicial system is broken and will only be fixed when everybody is in court. Of course, the same complaint came from Greece and Rome in the years before their fall.

david7134 on September 7, 2013 at 5:45 pm

One other thing. Many people hate plaintiff attorneys, yet I have found that defense attorneys are just as bad. They will seem to be in your corner, but will do things to keep the action going in order to stick it to the insurance companies.

david7134 on September 7, 2013 at 5:49 pm

“RIDICULOUS: Obama Judge Allows Absurd “Dr. Scholl’s Ruined My Life” Lawsuit to Proceed”

Why not? Obama judges will be ruining all of our lives soon too.

Frankz on September 7, 2013 at 7:18 pm

Oh my my, look how the exalted Skunky has fallen and regressed.
Some days Skunky, your mind is as sharp as a tack, others, its as dull as an emery board just used on Sasquatch’s toes.

Big D on September 7, 2013 at 7:28 pm

Don’t ya just love ugly women with fat feet and stubby little toes, who wear sandals? [toe rings & foot tattoos optional].

#1 Vato on September 8, 2013 at 12:52 am

Ah Skunky, I can appreciate your contributions to this blog, my simile was meh, I admit, however I save my best for the best and your tangent on Gerald’s post was so feeble, a mediocre simile, is what you deserved. I did like the “Groan-Worthy” snipe, that’s the Skunky I fell for, good to see you staying on point, and not some errant, b.s. Stay focused sista.

Big D on September 8, 2013 at 11:43 am

The woman’s law suit says she lost past wages? Hmm,I’d actually like to see them prove that in court!

Red Randy on September 8, 2013 at 10:31 pm

This case raises a couple of key questions: Should defendants be liable for failing to have a warning label regarding the presence of paraphenylenedeamine (PPDA)in the sandals (probably in the dye used in the leather straps)? Should someone who has such an extreme sensitivity to PPDA have a duty to investigate the possible presence of that substance in a product before buying and using it? Should companies that make and sell products with PPDA warn people of its hazards if only a very small percentage of the population is so affected? What amount of damages would be involved (assuming liability) and how would those damages be reasonably calculated?

So, what’s PPDA? The plaintiff is someone who happens to allergic to PPDA, a product that the Consumer Product Safety Commission has deemed to be a “hazardous substance.” PPDA is an ingredient found in permanent hair dyes. People allergic to PPDA should not use any permanent hair dyes. About one fourth of the people allergic to PPDA are also allergic to ingredients in semi-permanent dyes. While PPDA dyes are rarely used in clothing, other dyes that may cross-react with PPDA are in clothing. As a result, some PPDA-sensitive patients cannot wear dark clothing, but can wear fabrics dyed in lighter shades.

What happens to someone who is allergic to PPDA when they come into contact with it? Contact dermatitis is the most common reaction for those with acute PPDA sensitivity. PPDA does not adversely affect most people, and may not even be noticed the first time a person prone to such sensitivity is exposed. But once the skin becomes sensitive or allergic to the substance, any exposure will produce a rash. The rash usually doesn’t start until a day or two later, but can start a soon as hours or as late as a week. The dermatitis usually shows redness, swelling and water blisters, from tiny to large. The blisters may break, forming crusts and scales. Untreated, the skin may darken and become leathery and cracked. Allergic contact dermatitis can be difficult to distinguish from other rashes, especially after it been present for a while.

In addition to PPDA sensitivities, some people may have sensitivities to rubber that may be used in the shoe’s or sandal’s construction. Adhesives, both rubber and non-rubber, can also cause problems. Even leather shoes may contain these. Shoes without rubber should be substituted.

The plaintiff in this case already knew that she was highly allergic to PPDA. In my opinion, someone who has such rather unique skin sensitivities needs to do their own due diligence on products. The plaintiff should do some research on all types of clothing and footwear products, and should not depend on manufacturers (and certainly not merchants) for product disclosures addressing every possible adverse reaction to a product. Most manufacturers have toll-free numbers to get product content information, and even if the rep on the other end of the line doesn’t know the immediate answer, most companies would be able to an answer to you within a day or two at most.

In this case, the plaintiff did no due diligence whatsoever, despite her extreme PPDA sensitivity and with full knowledge of her sensitivities. Certainly, once the plaintiff experienced the skin rashes on her feet, she should have immediately suspected the cause and ceased wearing the sandals, thereby minimizing any further pain and irritation.

Thus, even if a determination is ultimately made that the manufacturer was liable because it should have put a PPDA warning disclosure on the product, this case should in no way be a “lottery-winner” from a damages calculation perspective(unless we’re talking about, maybe, the daily number).

Ralph Adamo on September 9, 2013 at 1:43 am

DG,
I have several better stories. A doctor was called to come deliver his patient. He left the hospital were he was doing similar activity and traveled across town to the hospital where the lady was in confinement. He did not show for the delivery and the woman was administered to by the nurses, no problems with delivery or baby. The woman sued and won. Why didn’t the doctor show? Because he was found dead in his car in the hospital parking lot. He had a MI.

Then there is my case. I had severe, severe abdominal pain and after about 20 hours went to the ER and saw a friend as the attending ER doctor. He sent me for an ultra-sound and did blood test. Gave me pain meds. The conclusion was that nothing was wrong. As a physician I suspected different but was not in a position to assert myself (which can be bad). I went home and was generally sick for several months, doctors don’t go the get help. Finally, my wife took me back to the doctor after I started hallucinating. It turns out my gallbladder was ruptured. The mortality on a fresh rupture is 50%, one that is septic, like me, is about 90%. It took me 4 years to recover. It did not sue.

david7134 on September 9, 2013 at 2:28 pm

As a man in my 30s who never officially grew up, I still wear nothing but Doc Martins. The most comfortable shoe known to man. Might I add, they are good for all occasions as well. However, despite attending a public school, I would think that if I bought a pair of shoes and they bothered me, I would simply never wear them again. The last thing on my mind would be to sue someone over something that is essentially my fault. Does this mean when I go to a restaurant and order something that I dont like, I can now sue people as well?
People need to seriously stop wearing sandals all together. Nobody wants to see your disgusting feet. Buy a real pair of shoes.

Forsberg on September 13, 2013 at 5:36 pm

You should take part in a contest for one of the best sites
on the web. I’m going to recommend this site!

driving lessons in east ham on December 9, 2013 at 11:19 pm