Man wearing high heels injured himself in cracked footpath

lifeandtimes · 21-12-2017 09:53AM #1

So just a wonder I had that id like to open for discussion.

A man walking along a public foot path wearing high heels unknowingly steps into a crack with the heel on the pavement falling over and injuring himself. The path itself doesn't seem to be kept up to standard by the council.

The man brings a case against them for negligence, what issues might face him?

Would the council be liable as the path was not kept up to standard or is the man responsible as he has a due care to himself and wearing foot wear he may not normally wear puts him at risk or does the foot wear even matter.

Id like to hear people's opinions in the scenario and other info you'd like to add

drunkmonkey · 21-12-2017 10:01AM

Regardless of what he identifies as anyone would have to be treated the same, if the path wasn't maintained and was a risk he'd have a claim and as weve seen a couple of weeks ago he could have had 5 pints and he'd still have a claim.
High heels aren't made for men but I doubt they'd make that argument as there some big boned women out there as well.

SuperSean11 · 21-12-2017 10:03AM

The question is do they owe a duty of care to people that use the footpath. Doesn’t matter their sex or what they were wearing.

flaneur · 21-12-2017 10:03AM

If the path were in a bad state of repair, they would have the same possibilities of going legal as anyone else.

lifeandtimes · 21-12-2017 10:05AM

SuperSean11 wrote: »

The question is do they owe a duty of care to people that use the footpath. Doesn’t matter their sex or what they were wearing.

Yes they do but people owe some reasonable care to themselves as the woman who slipped down a grassy knoll at blancherdstown instead of using a footpath found out

Damien360 · 21-12-2017 10:06AM

So if the same person arrives in stilts, we still have a duty of care and say nothing of their own self care ? Where does cop on begin and legislation for everything end.

seamus · 21-12-2017 10:07AM

One can make the "inappropriate footwear" defence if it's footwear which is not designed to be worn on that surface, e.g. football boots or ice skates.

It could also be a reasonable defence to argue that the plaintiff was inexperienced in the use of that footwear. Simply the wearing of high heels by a man though would not be a reasonable defence.

However, on the primary issue, there is no contract upon a council to maintain paths or roads "up to standard". This is called "nonfeasance" and there is only liability where a duty of care existed. Unless the injured party could show that the council knew about the issue and failed to address it in a timely manner, or it was the result of bad workmanship (rather than weathering or a 3rd party damaging it), it's fairly well established that councils are not liable for injuries caused by poor surfaces.

lifeandtimes · 21-12-2017 10:14AM

seamus wrote: »

One can make the "inappropriate footwear" defence if it's footwear which is not designed to be worn on that surface, e.g. football boots or ice skates.

What is appropriate footwear for a path? Surely high heels are acceptable?

seamus wrote: »

it could also be a reasonable defence to argue that the plaintiff was inexperienced in the use of that footwear. Simply the wearing of high heels by a man though would be a reasonable defence.

I highly doubt just because he was a man would be a valid defense.

There would be uproar about inequality

But this is the kind of discussion I wanted to have in this thread.

Peregrinus · 21-12-2017 10:16AM

I think the fact that the person wearing the high heels was a man is a red herring. Assume that someone has a duty of care to maintain the footpath. Assume that it's foreseeable that people will use the footpath while wearing high heels. It follows that the standard to which the path should be made includes "safe to walk on while wearing heels".

There's an entirely separate argument about the extend of the Council's duty to maintain the footpath - does it make any difference whether they were made aware of the defects, for example? But the gender of the plaintiff is irrelevant to that argument.

Possibly depending on the facts, you could argue that there's a skill to wearing heels, particularly if you're an adult male with a typical weight and a typically high centre of gravity, and that there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff in going out in heels when he hadn't mastered that skill. But you could only run that argument if you had some evidence that he wasn't a competent or experienced wearer of heels; you couldn't assume it simply on the basis of his gender.

flatty · 21-12-2017 10:17AM

seamus wrote: »

One can make the "inappropriate footwear" defence if it's footwear which is not designed to be worn on that surface, e.g. football boots or ice skates.

It could also be a reasonable defence to argue that the plaintiff was inexperienced in the use of that footwear. Simply the wearing of high heels by a man though would be a reasonable defence.

However, on the primary issue, there is no contract upon a council to maintain paths or roads "up to standard". This is called "nonfeasance" and there is only liability where a duty of care existed. Unless the injured party could show that the council knew about the issue and failed to address it in a timely manner, or it was the result of bad workmanship (rather than weathering or a 3rd party damaging it), it's fairly well established that councils are not liable for injuries caused by poor surfaces.

Agreed, unless the poor road surface has been previously reported ( I think)

seamus · 21-12-2017 10:18AM

I highly doubt just because he was a man would be a valid defense.

There would be uproar about inequality

Sorry, I missed a "not" there in my post, I've edited it now. No, simply being a man would not be enough. I'm sure the defence would probably throw it in there to see if it sticks, but the court would reject it.

lifeandtimes · 21-12-2017 10:28AM

Some very interesting points and the information regarding the council most likely not being liable unless they were advised and didn't repair in a reasonable amount of time.

Would it all make a difference if it was private property for somewhere like a shopping centre?

Peregrinus · 21-12-2017 10:28AM

There's no fundamental reason why men can' wear high heels, and do so safely (or as safely as women, at any rate). It's a matter of convention and custom that, in our society, they don't, but at other times and in other places it was acceptable or even common. And of course even in our society short men sometimes do wear (concealed) high heels to increase their apparent stature.

So generic arguments based solely on the plaintiff's gender are not going to fly. But an argument based on his actual height and weight of the plaintiff, plus his experience and/or competence, might be run.

Peregrinus · 21-12-2017 10:30AM

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Some very interesting points and the information regarding the council most likely not being liable unless they were advised and didn't repair in a reasonable amount of time.

Would it all make a difference if it was private property for somewhere like a shopping centre?

Yes, it would. But the gender of the plaintiff would still be irrelevant in that respect.

The occupier of the premises either does or doesn't have a duty to maintain the path. But you can't argue that they have a duty to women but not to men.

Mr. Incognito · 21-12-2017 10:33AM

The sex of the wearer is irrelevant.

The case would turn on the disrepair and the nature of it and the obligations of the Council

The Court could deduct a sum for contributory negligence if appropriate

seamus · 21-12-2017 11:12AM

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Would it all make a difference if it was private property for somewhere like a shopping centre?

The Occupier's Lability Act places a de facto duty of care on property owners, to visitors on that property.

The visitor is of course required to exercise due caution, but where an obvious danger exists - such as a tripping hazard on a path, the property owner is effectively liable by default whether they knew about it or not.

There is a defence if the appearance of the hazard and the injury occured close together - e.g. a delivery driver drops a heavy box and causes the path to collapse, and then 3 minutes later someone trips on it. But in general, "I didn't know about that" usually doesn't exempt the occupier from liability.

The OLA doesn't apply to public land.

Victor · 22-12-2017 04:28AM

Sober, high-heeled-shoe-wearing women sometimes fall due to their shoes. Merely falling doesn't place a liability on the footpath owner. The risk of falling does mean the wearer has to exercise caution, e.g. at drainage gullies and at soft ground.

Merely falling is usually not serious. However, this can be exacerbated by poor design and workmanship, e.g. if sharp metal edges were used instead of chamfered or bullnose edges. The presence or absence of appropriate handrails may be another matter.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

High heels aren't made for men

I'm sure there are some manufacturers that do make them for men.

I doubt they'd make that argument as there some big boned women out there as well.

We know nothing of the stature of said man.

AvonEnniskerry · 22-12-2017 06:44AM

To be honest I can't see why they would need to place emphasis on the fact it was a man wearing them. It could have as easily been a women. A footpath is generally a suitable place to wear high heels if you need to get from a-b.

lifeandtimes · 22-12-2017 10:44AM

AvonEnniskerry wrote: »

To be honest I can't see why they would need to place emphasis on the fact it was a man wearing them. It could have as easily been a women. A footpath is generally a suitable place to wear high heels if you need to get from a-b.

True but the defense argument would be that people have a duty of care to themselves and a man wearing these shoes that he may not normally wear and/or be made for him could be argued as not taking due care of himself but is that a valid argument though?

seamus · 22-12-2017 10:52AM

lifeandtimes wrote: »

True but the defense argument would be that people have a duty of care to themselves and a man wearing these shoes that he may not normally wear and/or be made for him could be argued as not taking due care of himself but is that a valid argument though?

Yes. There is a burden on the individual to take a duty of care to themselves. And someone wearing any new footwear for the first time has a reasonable expectation that while they get used to them, there's a higher chance of tripping/slipping/twisting an ankle.

If you remove the high heels from the equation and say he was wearing a pair of hiking boots that he had just bought that day. There would still be a reasonable defence there that he fell because he wasn't used to his boots.

AvonEnniskerry · 23-12-2017 03:21AM

lifeandtimes wrote:

True but the defense argument would be that people have a duty of care to themselves and a man wearing these shoes that he may not normally wear and/or be made for him could be argued as not taking due care of himself but is that a valid argument though?

seamus wrote:

Yes. There is a burden on the individual to take a duty of care to themselves. And someone wearing any new footwear for the first time has a reasonable expectation that while they get used to them, there's a higher chance of tripping/slipping/twisting an ankle.

I suppose that all depends on whether the shoe fits. If the heels he was wearing were bought in his size then essentially it was proper foot wear and the shoe should not have caused an accident. Do we know it was his first time wearing them? He could be a seasoned pro... Just this is the first time he's had an accident or worn them out and about.

Man wearing high heels injured himself in cracked footpath

Comments