A WOMAN has been awarded more than £7,000 compensation from a shoe shop - after she broke her ankle when her high heel snapped.
Sophie King, 20, took legal action against Dolcis after the two-and-a-half inch heel split and sent her sprawling during a night out.
Legal experts say her case could open the floodgates for hundreds of similar claims from women who take a tumble in their heels. Sophie, from Knutsford, had bought the black strappy shoes for £35 from Dolcis in the Trafford Centre.
She wore them for the first time on a night out with friends in Manchester centre. She said: "As I was walking down the tram platform the shoe snapped and I went over on it. It was really painful but I didn't want to ruin the night for everyone so we went on to the first bar.
"I began to feel better after a couple of drinks. But then the next thing I knew I'd passed out and was in the back of an ambulance."
Sophie, who is studying English literature at Durham University, had broken her ankle. She had several weeks in plaster and an operation.
She said it stopped her from playing sports at college and that she had to quit a waitressing job she had secured over the Christmas holidays.
At Manchester County Court she was awarded £7,200 after the shoe firm admitted the high heels were faulty. The case has taken more than three years to settle.
Sophie, currently working as an au pair in Spain, says the whole experience has put her off wearing heels.
She said: "I'm 5ft 9in and hardly ever wore them anyway so it was really annoying. Now I just stick to really chunky heels if I'm wearing them at all."
She thinks other women may take inspiration from her case.
She said: "I know so many people who have gone over in their heels it's not funny.
"It wouldn't surprise me if more people came forward."
Mike Hardacre, from Manchester law firm Pannone, which represented Sophie, said: "Sophie could prove that she had bought the shoes and this was the first time she had worn them. She managed to get Dolcis to accept that there had been a fault with the manufacturing.
"In English law she was well protected under the Sale of Goods Act so it was relatively straightforward."
Mr Hardacre said that other women who have suffered similar fates may now come forward.
"If they have had the shoes for six months and it happens then it would be a lot more complicated," he said. "But if they have just bought the shoes and the shop accepts liability they could and should take it up. Because Sophie was injured so badly there was compensation but I would say in cases without injury customers would be entitled to have back the money they paid."
Dolcis went into administration in January. The firm's parent company, Alexon, declined to comment on the case when contacted.
You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.
Tweet

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Jo14, Outer Mongolia (08/07/2008 at 08:47)
However, people (can't just assume ladies here!) cannot be taking legal action just because they "fell off" their shoes - that's just ridiculous. You buy high heels, that's the chance you're taking.
Audenshaw Bob (08/07/2008 at 09:00)
Last week I saw a very minor prang in a supermarket and the dariver got out holding his neck and gave out the most pathetic agony type noise I've heard.
This womans heel broke, so what will shoe companies do know? Just do flat shoes.
A friend of my partner weighs 20 stone and always without fail wears high heels. What is the breaking strain on them? If she went over on them who's fault is it?
jacko101 (08/07/2008 at 09:46)
Do you realise how fast 60mph is? What was your car like after that? I assume a write off?
As for this lady, the shoes were faulty, she broke her ankle and lost her job, that's why she got compensation.
This is not about greedy compensation cultures, although there is obviously a growing problem with that.
60mph and you had a sore neck, maybe you meant 6mph? :)
Big Bad Bob, Worsley., Walkden (08/07/2008 at 10:13)
Audenshaw Bob (08/07/2008 at 11:01)
I suppose I could have sued but I have a bit of pride in myself.
I understand what you are saying with this womans heels but were do you stop? I had trainers once with what were very long laces. If I tripped on the is it the shoe companies fault?
Accidents happen, accept it, move on and lose your bitterness and 'the world owes me' nonsense and you'll be free.
Audenshaw Bob (08/07/2008 at 11:08)
Grief Tourist, Tameside (08/07/2008 at 11:13)
Black Flag (08/07/2008 at 11:19)
No, because it's your responsibility to tie your own shoe laces. It is the company's responsibility to ensure that the product it is selling is not defective.
Yes, accidents happen, but if a company makes profit by selling a defective good it has to take responsibility. What would you do if you bought a car which the dealer sold knowing the brakes were defective and you had a serious accident, just shrug your shoulders and say "accidents happen?"
If everybody had that attitude, no one would ever be made to take responsibility for their own actions.
jacko101 (08/07/2008 at 11:23)
At that speed, I can't believe you didn't suffer any sort of whip lash? You braced yourself, how? At that speed you would have suffered injuries, whether you knew it or not and you should have gone to hospital.
I was hit at around 30mph, I didn't feel too bad, a little stiff, but I went to hospital as a precaution, they found torn muscle and whip lash and I had to have back treatment for a couple of months. I still didn't feel too bad, but without the treatment my back could have suffered in the long run.
I got £5k out of it, due to loss of earnings and my little Polo was written off by the Dutchman who hit me!
There is nothing wrong with claiming against an idiot driver who hits you like that. Nothing to do with pride at all.
the beer baron (08/07/2008 at 11:29)
Leo B (08/07/2008 at 11:56)
Mr Angry, Bury (08/07/2008 at 11:58)
This compensation culture must be crushed
Once again (08/07/2008 at 12:01)
Councillor Allheart, in a black cab (08/07/2008 at 12:39)
It is the company's responsibility to ensure that the product it is selling is not defective. I would say that laces which were clearly too long constitutes a defect and would have gone to court.
My firm is Robbem, Fleecer and Frigham if you need further advice/representation.
Mr Manchester (08/07/2008 at 12:42)
It's always a 'friend', eh Audy Bob. What goes on behind closed doors... ;)
Nicola Turner (08/07/2008 at 12:45)
I think this girl had every right to claim - wish i'd have thought of that!
Manchester Born & Bred, Manchester (08/07/2008 at 12:47)
hjk (08/07/2008 at 13:59)
PURCHASED 3 YEARS AGO WHEN
£35.00 BOUGHT YOU A LOT MORE THAN IT DOES TODAY.
Salford n Proud, Salford (08/07/2008 at 14:25)
Audenshaw Bob (08/07/2008 at 15:39)
What I am saying is that you see drunken women on Deansgate stumbling in their high heels. If they trip up who's fault is it? The fault of the shoemaker, the fault of the brewery, the fault of the pub or the council paving department? Or is it just one of those things? It's like these people who sue for broken legs on skiing holidays!
Jacko, I think that I was lucky in te crash. I had one a few years later at a slower speed and I did have injuries that time.
It's funny how stock car drivers don't seem to suffer whiplash, even Formula 1 drivers walk away after 200mph shunts.
Sportcity Kid, eastlands (08/07/2008 at 15:43)
scaramanga (08/07/2008 at 15:49)
Insurance companies are the first to look for where the liability lies and to make such sweeping statements about low speed impacts just shows how little you probably now about accidents and how the body and car absorbs impact.
Doubtless there are many fraudulent claims and those people need weeding out in some way but this girl broke her ankle wearing what was accpted by the shoemaker as defective shoes. They accepted it! So where is the problem.
I know from experience how painful a broken ankle can be and if the shoes caused it then she desrves to be reimbursed for lost earnings etc.
Plus she is a babe.
Salford n Proud, Salford (08/07/2008 at 15:54)
mylifeinthemafia (08/07/2008 at 15:57)
suge, mancs (08/07/2008 at 16:28)