An update on the Crocs matter

It has been brought to my attention that I misinterpreted the 11,000 statistic, as that number represents ALL escalator related accidents, not just the ones associated with Crocs. Nevertheless, I did some quick research, and it does appear that in all but TWO of the 77 instances of escalator foot entrapment, the person was wearing Crocs or a similar soft sided clog.

In fact, here's a pretty interesting excerpt from Consumer Reports:

In Japan, where 3.9 million pairs of Crocs were sold last year, the Trade Ministry asked the Colorado-based maker of Crocs to change the design of its shoes after receiving 65 complaints of Crocs and Crocs knockoffs becoming stuck in escalators between June and November of 2007. Most of the cases involved young children.

When asked about the entrapments, a Crocs spokesperson said, "Escalator safety is an issue we take very seriously. Safety experts say several factors can contribute to escalator accidents, including escalator design and maintenance, loose clothing or untied shoelaces, footwear and improper use."

So, it's undeniable that Crocs was aware of this potential hazard. Indeed, the issue was prominent enough that an impressive number of complaints were made and a specific request was made to the company asking that they redesign the shoe's sole. What did a spokesperson say in response? He basically ignored the issue and redirected it to something else (making it exclusively an "escalator" issue).

Still think this is an isolated, freak accident? Check out these stories and articles and you may not be too sure:
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/safety/2008/05/crocs-escalator.html
http://gothamist.com/2008/02/20/more_crocs_esca.php
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Consumer/story?id=2530368
http://www.tokyomango.com/tokyo_mango/2008/04/crocs-blamed-fo.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090301115.html
http://www.styledash.com/2007/09/10/crocs-cause-40-escalator-accidents/
http://www.denverpost.com/foodretail/ci_9416941

And if you want a particularly vile photo of the damage that could be done, feel free to check out this (graphic) newspaper scan:
http://lifeonthespot.com/blog/images/accident2.jpg

After reading all of these articles, I think it's clear that this is not some isolated incident. Hence why I do not think that this lawsuit is frivolous. The woman's complaint -- that the company is well aware of the hazard related to their product, yet have seemingly done nothing to remedy or prevent this issue -- carries weight.

A lot of people like to compare this situation to freak accidents or catastrophes that are simply part of your everyday life (the old "accidents happen" argument). I don't think that's a fair comparison. Consider the following cases instead:

In August 2006, Dell recalled a battery manufactured by Sony because, in RARE instances, it may overheat and could potentially cause a risk of fire. Likewise, I also remember a few years ago that an SUV trunk -- I believe it was a Ford Explorer -- recalled their trunk doors after they had discovered that in some instances, people were injured when the door had opened with too much force.

And these are only two examples that immediately came to mind. The point is, there is a precedent behind the argument that when a product exhibits a prevalent and dangerous flaw, it is the company's responsibility to rectify the situation.

Instead, as one of the articles states, the company is standing by their design.