Are shoes required for reasons of liability?

[single_bg url=””]
Not usually. Most retail stores have nothing to fear from bare feet. A shopping mall and its stores, for example, is probably a very safe place for feet. Lawsuits from a barefoot patron due to a foot injury are exceedingly rare, and judicial victory even more rare (I found two in the past 50 years). On the other hand, 20,000 women per year go to the hospital from high-heel injuries, and lawsuits involving shoe-related falls and injuries are too numerous to count (well, there’s a lot). To my knowledge, there are no insurance riders or other requirements for customers to wear shoes for any business, not even car shops (though customers are often not allowed in a commercial garage without an escort). Bottom line, shoes are more of a liability than bare feet.

* * *

History tells us:

If a shopping mall is a safe place for bare footers, then supermarkets, pet stores, health food stores, etc, are also very safe for walking barefoot.

Have you ever been to a supermarket where a patron dropped a jar or bottle that broke upon impact, and spilled all over the place. Any employee that notices it, will immediately sound the alarm, and half a dozen cleaning people will surround the spill with brooms, buckets, paper towels,  and more to clean it as soon as possible.

And even these places keep it clean to prevent any hazard conditions, they still have these rules against barefoot in their store, and if their reason of law or code falls a part, next in line is the insurance co.

bare in supermarketbarefoot in the supermarket



What do you think of this post?
  • Sucks (0)
  • Boring (0)
  • Useful (0)
  • Interesting (0)
  • Awesome (0)

A wonderful world of living with bare feet

All articles & images belong to their rightful owners

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *