Georgia Bankruptcy Blog

This is off-topic, except to the extent that it does relate to the financial condition of companies and sometimes these issues lead to Bankruptcy. 

Crocs are cheap plastic shoes, but very trendy nonetheless for some reason.  Like flip flops and similar shoes, one can generally look at them and know that are not sturdy shoes.  They are what they are.  Nonetheless, when these shoes are worn and the wearer finds out they are not hard -soled hiking boots, lawsuits are filed.  The latest one was filed by Belinda Skelton, the long-time producer of the Neal Boortz Show.  The story from the Atlanta Journal -

The suit filed by Skelton’s husband, Clark Meyer, is asking for $2 million after the couple’s 4-year-old son (shown below) was injured last month at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport when the popular plastic footwear he was wearing got caught in a moving escalator. Multiple toes were broken on their son’s right foot and his big toe came “within millimeters” of being lost.

Skelton conceded that she was avoiding the message boards Wednesday. “It’s days like this when you find out who your friends are,” she told Buzz with a sigh. Skelton said money was not a factor in filing the suit.

 “We struggled, and we prayed over this,” she said. “But we felt that someone had to force Crocs to do the right thing. We want a warning tag on those shoes.”

I have a closet full of shoes, and probably a couple pair of cheap flip-flops.  I did not need to read a "warning" that would have to be several pages of small type to warn me about every possible harm that could come by wearing them.  I can figure out that they could get stuck in an escalaor, MARTA train or any number of other objects.  I suspect women who wear high heels generally do not look for lawsuits when the heel gets stuck in a grate on the street.  Similarly, if I had  pair of Crocs, I would know right off the bat they were not a substitute for sturdy shows.  One need only look at the product.  Again, the shoes are exactly what they appear to be. Nonetheless, when an accident happens because the shoes are exactly what they appear to be, it is time for multi-million dollar lawsuits.  All of us can probably think of thousands of ways one can be injured when wearing Crocs or any other shoe.  Do we need to have every possible scenario on a warning label?  How about a warning label on kids?

Of course, money is never the reason these lawsuits are filed.  That is, until the time comes to cash the check.  That might also be news for the lawyers who take these cases on a contingency fee. 

 “If some of these [commenters] had to lie next to my son at night and listen as he has nightmares, maybe they would feel differently.

What?? I suspect many would understand that just because there are accidents and injuries, does not mean there has to be fingers pointed at someone else.  I suspect many would also regret not paying more attention to themselves or their children, or buying cheap flimsy shoes then expecting them to wear like real shoes.   If this was anyone else,  Boortz would have a field day but I understand that family has to take priority.

In this case I have to side with Belinda. Lawsuits are expensive, time-consuming and emotionally draining. I don't think this suit was brought lightly. Her son really was harmed. Maybe it was the fault of the Crocs, maybe it was her own fault, but she has the right to present the facts to a jury and the Crocs manufacturer has the right to contest those facts and present a defense. That's what the American civil justice system is all about.

This sort of reminds me of the famous "McDonald's Coffee Case" of several years ago where someone sued McDonalds for spilling coffee on themselves in a car. The plaintiffs and their attorney were ridiculed mercilessly by talk radio hosts around the country (including, probably, Boortz), yet when the facts came out it turned out that McDonalds was well aware of the severe injuries their super-heated coffee had caused to dozens, if not hundreds, of consumers over the years. In that particular case, an elderly woman experienced third degree burns that required extensive skin grafts.

My point is that Belinda might very well have a valid case. If not, the jury might not award her anything (or an appellate judge might reduce any award). I seriously doubt that Belinda's family is going to get rich off of this suit.

But my further point is that this shows just what a hypocrite Boortz is. He's attacking people for jumping on Belinda when they've only heard one side of the story. But Boortz routinely attacks people from behind the safety of his microphone while giving only one side of the story and not allowing his targets to defend themselves.

I remember several months ago Boortz viciously attacked a local public school teacher over some trivial nonsense. Boortz named her by name, the school she worked out, and even listed her school website and her work email address on his website. Naturally, she was subjected to hundreds of disgusting, insulting and threatening emails, and her school and district received hundreds of demands that she be fired. Of course, Boortz never checked with her first or gave her an opportunity to respond to his over-the-top attacks. When it turned out there was "more to the story" than he'd disclosed on the air, he never issued a correction, let alone an apology.

I's sympathetic to the fact that Belinda is the target of public criticism for what might have been a gut-wrenching decision, but at least Boortz is able to use his forum to defend her. I would hope that in the future he'll remember this episode and start allowing his own targets a fair opportunity to defend themselves the next time he hauls off and attacks someone on his show, but I won't hold my breath. He didn't get where he is by being fair.

Hayden - You seem to be equating the "right thing to do" with "what I can legally get away with." We can go to Hartsfield this afternoon and within a few minutes probably see several people on the escalators with cheap flip flops (and some barefoot). Those people made the choice to leave their feet partially unprotected. If one suffers harm similar to the harm at issue here, and happens to get a jury to agree it was the fault of the manufacturer, it does not transform the case from a frivolous one to a valid one, beyond the legal docket. Here, presumably Belinda or her husband bought cheap, flimsy shoes for her child and an accident happened - one of many that could have happened with these shoes. I am leaning toward this being an accident with no one to blame, but IF fingers are going to be pointed they go in the direction of the person making the decision to put those shoes on the child. This is not over-heated coffee in a flimsy cup, that can't be determined beforehand. This is ASKING FOR the super-heated coffee in a flimsy cup, then complaining when it spills and burns. The parents knew, or should have known, what they were getting with cheap, plastic foam shoes. They got the benefit of their bargain. Now they want a lot more than that. Belinda could have chosen to use her status to publicize the danger of wearing Crocs, but she did not. She sued for $2 million. Crocs has stated they are going to add a warning. That was not enough, but the check she wants will be. I have heard that Boortz was defending Belinda and the lawsuit today, and if that is correct, I would call it hypicricical (as much as I think that word is overused). I don't think there is any doubt at all he would have blasted anyone else.

Scott -- Crocs could (and should) hire you as their defense lawyer to give the closing argument.

I'd do it for a lifetime supply of Crocs (or until the fad died and the company along with it), because "it really is not about the money." If you are reading, Crocs, I wear a size 12. The address is below.

This is the most frivolous lawsuit I have ever read about. This woman needs to take some responsibility for her actions. Crocs did not put the shoes on her son and take her son to the airport. She Did!

And then she took her son up/down the escalator.

It's her responsibility and she needs to own up.

My question is: Just what was this woman doing while her son was getting his shoe stuck on the elevator...was she watching him, or like so many parents these days, was she paying attention to something else at the time, maybe talking on her cell phone as so many people do when they're running through the airport? I've seen parents in all sorts of places, including airports, who aren't paying attention to their children, and the kids are getting into some sort of mischief without anyone telling them to stop. These children often are discovered either disturbing other people or causing potential harm to themselves or other people's things. I'm a little sensitive to this issue, because I am a Crocs customer and I would really really hate to see the company go out of business because of some stupid woman's lawsuit.

I've found these shoes to be more comfortable on my feet for long distance walking than regular sandals that cost many times more. Crocs are the only shoes I've found that can be worn for miles on end without causing a single blister. If Crocs should suffer from a lawsuit like this and end up going belly-up, so to speak, can I sue this woman for causing damage to my feet by taking away my comfortable shoes? Incidentally, I had a severe back ache problem for several years, and I have reason to believe that wearing these shoes has contributed to that problem going away.

Upon reading this, I had to burst out a belly laugh. This is a prime example of one of the "Loser" law suits that Neal says should be allowed. If she loses, she should owe Crocs 2 million dollars. Bet Mr Boortz wouldn't be so fast to endorse his message if Belinda had to shell out 2 million big ones.

Hypocrites are amazing people.

Belinda Skelton is a dim bulb in the first place, and I would bet her husband is a doofus redneck. I'm sorry her son was injured but it's not the fault of CROCS.

Too bad, this Mom wasn't aware of the dangers of escalators which the media has frequently warned of the problem of children being caught in the mechinism as it moves. The area closer to the edge is extremely dangerous and whether her son had crocs or a pair of untied sneakers he was at risk of being sucked in. Unfortunately, escalators are dangerous and children too often are left to navigate on their own. These parents are partially responsible first for choice of a shoe for a child's growing feet which doesn't enclose the foot to provide stability. Also, no child should be on an elevator unless a parent who is able to give the child full attention and be within reach to correct the child if traveling too close to the edge, otherwise take an elevator. If anything children should be banned from escaltors for their own safety regardless of the inconvenience to their parents. Crocs are more likely safer than untied lace up shoes and are rather molded with no lose parts, so my guess is the child had not mastered keeping a slip on shoe on his foot. This was a preventable accident which the responsibility doesn't lay on the shoe but rather the supervision of a young child on a dangerous, moving machine.