Ankle injury from Snow and Rock purchased boots?

A snowHead

Hi there, this is my first post here although I have benefited from lots of tips and advices in this forum when I did my researches in the past.

I purchased a pair of boots (Salomon Max 90 W) from Snow and Rock last Feb just after finished the 2nd week of skiing in my life (Yes WRONG choice as I realised after I got to know this forum). I had to go back three times for refitting - 1st time for a damaged toe nail just for wearing the new boots at home for 15 mins for several days, 2nd and 3rd time as I suffered from very bad shin pain after trying the boots at Hemal.

Anyway the shin problem still existed after the 3rd time. I gave up on S&R and therefore booked an appointment with The Boot Lab since we were coming to 3V this week anyway.

I saw The Boot Lab guy on Sunday and he fitted me again. He told me that my boots were too big - not length wise but volume wise. I planned to talk to the S&R ppl after I go back and the next day tragic happened. I was skiing on a gentle blue run in Les Menuires and somehow I fell. The speed was quite low because the skis didn't fall off. My right ankle got twisted inside the boots and the X ray showed two hairline fractures on the fibula bone near my right ankle. Now I'm staying in the chalet alone while my friends are all out for skiing, under such nice weather here this week. Sad

I'm still left with two days till the end of the 1 year guarantee period from S&R when I go back this Sat. In the T&C S&R stated that they would issue a credit note less 35% usage fee if they still couldn't resolve the problem after giving them sufficient opportunities to try.

My question is, am I right to think it's the boots being too big which has caused the fracture, as supposedly your ankle should be protected by the boots? And any suggestions that I might be able to push beyond this 35% usage fee, as they were unable to resolve my shin pain problem and now I have suffered from an injury because they fitted me wrongly?

Many thanks in advance.

A snowHead

@rosycheekfox, IMHO, no.

I don't think a rotational fracture will be defended by boots. Although I'd have thought your bindings should have released, even at low speed.

And how would you prove that the boots were at fault anyway? Lots of people ski in boots that are too big.

If you can still get your credit note, do that but don't buy your next pair from S&R.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

@rosycheekfox, afraid i am going to agree with @under a new name even a perfectly fitted boot will not 100% protect the foot and ankle, there is always some amount of skin over bone movement inside a boot.

boots, bindings, helmets, back protectors, etc are all there just like the seat belt and airbag in the car to minimize injury, unfortunately they don't stop you driving into the wall

You need to Login to know who's really who.

@rosycheekfox, welcome to SH, sorry it's under such manky circumstances.

Like @under a new name says, I doubt you'd have much recourse with S&R re the accident, beyond whats already been suggested about the 65% refund, unless it materially malfunctioned.

Focus on your rehab, next season and that now you'll be much more informed about what you need from your next boots.

Good luck.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Thanks for the suggestions guys. I will try to talk to S&R for the problem they couldn't resolve, and remember to get my next pair from the reputable fitters here.

Hope you all have a safe and fun snow season. snowHead

You'll need to Register first of course.

@rosycheekfox, it sounds like a horrible accident. Hopefully not too much damage done and the bones should heal up even stronger than before.

It sounds to me like one of these things that just happen sometimes. If the foot hadn't twisted in the boot then the next weakness up the line is the knee and that could have had far worse consequences.

It's a shame you've been abandoned for the day. I'm sure a bit of company would be nice.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Sorry to hear of your injury....those slow twisting falls can do more damage than people realize.

While reading your post, my initial thought was No....and then I saw that this view was borne out by people with more knowledgeable.

After all it is free

Thank you guys for the kind wishes. Now I feel rather fortunate that it is the ankle not knee.

Not all S&R fitters are sub standard. I was fitted by a Scandinavian girl at S&R Covent Garden and she was excellent. My boots have been perfect in every way.

@rosycheekfox, Your injury is from the boot not releasing and this is down to the rental shop, or yourself if they are your own skis, setting the DIN too high for your ability and weight. I suspect that since another fitter adjusted the boots before the accident, even a claim against S&R for their fit guarantee would be void anyway.

You could try to get the re-fit invoice credited. That would be fair.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

snow reports

@dp, The Boot Lab, not Snow and Rock, advised @rosycheekfox that her boots were too big. But so what? Literally thousands of people ski in ski boots that are "too big", some of them quite happily. It doesn't appear that @rosycheekfox was told her boots were dangerously big, just that the comfort problems couldn't be solved with them. I am down 2 sizes from my first pair of ski boots. I skied that first pair for 3 years! @rosycheekfox is a beginner skier on her third week skiing, she can hardly be expected to know what a well fitting ski boot feels like, nor that she was risking injury from skiing in them (if that is even true).

You know it makes sense.

@dp, you've misread my post. It was The Boot Lab guy who commented that my boots were too big not the S&R guy. If S&R guy knew it was too big they wouldn't have sold me the pair anyway.

I understand perfectly about what you explained above regarding how the binding works. My previous reply was to @bar shaker stating that the binding wasn't too tight as he guessed, since it managed to fall off every time previously. In fact, both you and I were explaining the same thing to the same people, just that you explained it in theory while I gave real life example.

I understand what the pros said here that S&R is not responsible for my injury and I accept it. That's the purpose of posting here, i.e. seeking pro's opinion and listen to them.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

@Gämsbock, sorry I didn't read the post fully... I thought she was referring to S&R. They refer to their boot fitting service in stores as 'labs'.

Point remains the same. The Boot Lab said the OP needed a different ski boot. OP decides to ski in the wrong ski boot anyway. OP then gets hurt and wants additional compensation. That makes no sense. I agree there should be a refund in place for being sold an incorrectly sized boot in the first place. (I hate this 35% thing. That should be for changing your mind, not for situations where you have been sold something not suitable). \

I am also not saying that the injury wouldn't have occurred were the OP in the correct size boots. There's every potential it might have still happened.

All I meant is that you can't pick and choose which bits of advice you want to take, and then expect extra compensation for things going wrong.

@rosycheekfox, (sorry wrote the above before I saw your post) yes sorry I did misread your post.

RE bindings - yes I was agreeing with you - just re-assuring you that (a) you didn't do anything wrong there and (b) there's every chance the ski shop didn't either.

Whilst the 'pros' are probably right (although AFAIK @CEM is the only 'pro' boot fitter on this thread) I just meant that for future, you might avoid injury by listening to all the advice you get. Like I said before, I totally appreciate that you're not in a position to buy 2 sets of boots in the same season, I totally get that we would think that it's probably OK to ski on an incorrectly fitted boot for a while until you can sort a permanent replacement out and I totally get seriously irate about major brand shops like Snow and Rock PERSISTENTLY selling people boots which don't fit, and I say persistently because there is just a thread a week on this forum from somebody telling the same story, not to mention all the other skiers I meet who've just come to believe that uncomfortable, badly fitted ski boots is just par for the ski boots course because S&R told them their boots were properly fitted.

As @Gämsbock said people do frequently ski on the wrong boots, but a boot of incorrect volume will allow more movement inside, which may have contributed to your injury. It is plain to see that movement inside the boot is movement that the bindings do not have an opportunity to deal with, since the boot remains in the same place. Bindings only get to deal with issues where the foot and boot are moving together.

I do still feel you should get a 100% refund and should chase for it - on both the fitting fees and the boots themselves - and you should chase that regardless of this 35% nonsense. Because ultimately they have sold you a product which is unfit for purpose. And the Consumer Rights Act of 2015 - which S&R are legally obliged to conform with - states that goods must be fit for purpose. Thus I would completely argue that since you had the boots supplied with a fitting appointment, there was a trust there that S&R would provide you with ski boots which were fit for purpose for your, individual, use; and since they provided you with a ski boot which - as agreed by a professional boot fitter - is factually too big for your foot, they have not fulfilled their obligations under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to provide a product which is fit for the purpose that it was sold under and therefore you should be entitled to a refund. (If they take issue with this, try posting it on their Facebook page or tweeting it to them).

A snowHead

@dp, I'm not a lawyer, but the boots are fit for purpose.

My OH skis in a shell one size too big but in a low volume last to accommodate and compensate for an arthritic toe. Are they or are they not fit for purpose?

A snowHead

@dp Thanks for clarifying.

I think we all agree on two things here now, that S&R is not liable for my injury even though the boots are too big for me. And my next boots shouldn't be from S&R.

As much as I would like to have a 100% refund, I feel it might not be practically viable. Yes The Boot Lab guy said my boots are too big, and yes my very experienced ski instructor said my boots are too big, but I feel it hard to convince S&R to buy into this as S&R might just think these are opinions not fact.

65% refund might be more realistic for me. After all they couldn't resolve the issue of my shin pain.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

I think @dp does make a good case for asking for a full refund on the boot purchase. Nothing to do with any injury or pain but just that the boots @rosycheekfox was sold are too large and therefor not fit for purpose.

And I'd stick to that. As soon as you talk about 'pain' they can talk about things they can do to stop that, and if you talk about injury they can raise questions about whether you did the boot up correctly? were the bindings correctly set? etc. Just stick to the fact that the boots are too large and this can be confirmed if they want to go into the details.

At the very least, ask for the full refund and explain why you believe this. If they agree with you then no problem. If they disagree then you have the option to make a decision at that point. There's little point in starting at your worst case option.

PS. I hope you're feeling better today.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

@dp, where do you read the OP asking for compensation or ignoring advice? She's asked for advice on here and listened to it, from I what I can see. She has accepted the general opinion that these sort of injuries can happen to anyone, aren't necessarily the fault of the equipment, and isn't expecting compensation - she's only asked if it is reasonable to push for more than a 65% refund on her unsuitable boots. Which you seem to agree with? As far as I can see the only person who has mentioned compensation is you.

The only "advice" I can see you think she has "ignored" is that of The Boot Lab saying her boots were too big. This would only apply if they had said something along the lines of "your boots are dangerously big, you should not ski in them". But that doesn't appear to have been the case. To a certain extent, "too big" is in any case a matter of preference.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

For correct (ie accurate) functioning a ski binding relies on the boot fit to be reasonable* as it's the foot that pushes/pulls the boot out of the binding. If the fit is excessive then the foot 'torques up' inside the boot instead of pushing/pulling it out thus leading to a higher propensity for injury. I've seen a number of injuries were this almost certainly was a factor.

* AFAIK there's nothing actually written in to the DIN standards re this but if I was being as an expert witness re an accident (which I have been on numerous occasions) I'd say that a shell gap of over 20mm c/w an associated excess volume etc should be considered too big.

You'll need to Register first of course.

@Gämsbock, she was advised by the Boot Lab that her boots were "too big". The word "too" infers an unsuitability does it not? "Too big" is "bigger than suitable". So the advice I would gather from that is that I should use boots which are the correct size, not too big. The OP did not choose to take that on board and source correctly sized boots, she pushed on with an incorrect size. so that's why I felt she had ignored advice.

As I previously stated, and @spyderjon re-iterated, bindings are simple little things that release when they're, essentially, pushed too hard. Any movement inside the boot is movement which is not bearing on the binding. The binding can only release from pressure bearing on it, it cannot telepathically realise that there is movement inside the boot which it is not bearing. Therefore, any movement occurring inside a ski boot carries an inherent danger as it prevents movement being borne on the binding which may resultantly prevent the binding from functioning correctly. For bindings to work properly, any movement in the foot needs to be transferred directly through the boot to the binding.

@under a new name, the issue with the OP is the volume, not the length. I ski in a boot a bit longer than recommended too. But the boot still has a tight fit because it is the correct volume boot. The OP stated that her boots are the correct length but the wrong volume. The higher volume is allowing her feet to move inside her boots which as I mention above may prevent the bindings from functioning properly. This is why I believe that the boots she has been provided with are unfit for purpose. I also believe that by paying for a fitting service, there is an assumed element of 'consultation' there and since she has been persistently furnished with poor advice, she also has a claim under the Consumer Rights Act in that she paid for a consultation service and the information provided was incorrect.

@rosycheekfox, as @olderscot backed up, I really would chase the unfit for purpose line and try to get 100% refunded. You should be looking to receive as much money back as possible, since the repeat appointments have cost you money and time (even excluding anything that might have arisen due to your accident - which I do agree would be very hard to prove that the boots had anything to do with it). Don't think of this 65% thing as them doing you a bit of a favour since the boots are used etc. They are a profit-making business, men in suits are making money and buying nice cars and going on fancy holidays with your money because they skimp on quality bootfitters and sell the public a service which they claim to be professional bootfitting which is often in fact minimum wage (or not much above it) shop floor staff who've received a day or two training. S&R need to realise that doing so is a false economy and that using minimum wage bootfitters is only going to result in shop stock being written off and refunds given. When everyone starts to do the same, S&R might have to actually listen and start ensuring quality boot fitting takes place to reduce the amount of refunds they have to do.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

@dp ignored advice to do what though? "Too big" isn't advice on it's own, it's just a statement. As I said, I had boots that were too big. I knew this for some time before I was able to solve it. None of the bootfitters I spoke to about it advised me that the boots were dangerous or said that I shouldn't ski in them, they just said that there was no way to solve the comfort issues with too big a shell. I was mid-way through a season, they all knew I was going to carry on skiing in them. Apart from anything else, S&R (presumably more than one fitter) had not advised rosycheekfox the boots were too big. So whatever she did, she had to ignore the opinion of at least one fitter.

No apology for accusing the OP of demanding compensation?

After all it is free

@rosycheekfox, welcome to Snowheads and I hope you mend quickly, I'm pleased you are keen to continue skiing

There won't be many people on here who's first boots weren't greatly oversized (me for one)
By all means go back to S+R to claim your credit note less 35% usage fee. You don't have to spend the credit note on boots, maybe a nice jacket instead? Also this will hopefully be part of the process of educating S&R to do their job properly.

I found the Boot Lab in Meribel to be excellent, even although they hadn't got a boot in stock to fit my particularly odd feet.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

@CEM, My reading of what @spyderjon says is that more than 20mm shell gap combined with an associated excess volume is too large. i.e. 25mm is probably fine as long as the rest of the boot fit is OK, but probably too much if the boot isn't a good fit for width/volume.

I don't think either of you are really saying anything different than the other.

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

@dp, The Boot Lab staff didn't explicitly said the boots were too dangerous to ski. I went to him hoping he could help to resolve my shin pain problem. He explained that with a boots too big in volume, I might have to overtighten it and it could possibly contribute to the shin problem. He said it would be difficult for him to change my existing ones to make me comfortable at the shin, and the best option is to get the right boots instead.

@Gï¿½msbock, it's OK. I don't feel @dp owe me any apology. English is not my native language and it could potentially be my choice of wording has a greater tendency to cause miscommunication. As long as it's clarified, it's OK. Smile

To everyone, thanks for all your kind advices and comments. I have seen four S&R boot fitters in total and never been advised my boots were too big any once. I will try to discuss with them when I go back tomorrow and post the update here. Thanks for all the help and sharing of knowledge so far. Blush

snow reports

@CEM, I was given a pair of Lange RX 80 LV to try at The Boot Lab. It did feel more snuggle but could also be because the liner in my Salomon boots was more packed so I can't say it's definitely a better pair, but it certainly felt more comfortable at the shin area. I am oriental and usually our feet are slimmer and shorter. I have two friends in the same trip who struggled to find anything suitable at ski rental shop because their feet are both low volume/small and short (mondo 22.5 or maybe even less).

@spyderjon sorry for asking a stupid question but what does the c/w stand for when you mentioned 20mm c/w?

@rosycheekfox, he means "combined with" he was being lazy Laughing

the lange is a little snugger, but in different areas, so even that might not have been perfect, possibly a youth (not childs) race boot would work

You know it makes sense.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

@dp, The Boot Lab staff knew I was going to ski in Salomon boots for the rest of the week. I do believe they would tell me not to if they thought my boots were way too big to the extent that they were going to be dangerous. As a result I don't think there is a need to ask explicitly whether I could continue to ski in them.

A snowHead

@rosycheekfox, that's fair enough. Like I said in all reasonable probability the fall was not related to the boots but I just felt you should be aware that ill-fitting boots could contribute to an injury by way of not allowing the bindings to function correctly.

When I posted my original post I thought that Boot Lab and S&R were the same people and hence I just thought that they might be surprised at telling you on one hand that the boots were the wrong size for you and then on the other you asking to change them because of an issue that you felt related to the incorrect sizing of the boot. Do you see what I mean? I'm not blaming you or calling you negligent. And since realising the separatism of S&R and The Boot Lab I have changed my stance to suggesting you should be seeking a 100% refund from S&R on account of them being unfit for purpose and you having received fundamentally incorrect advice in the consultation which you paid for.

A snowHead

@dp Yes I totally understand what you mean. Thanks for clarifying. Smile

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

@dp, now I've figured out how to quote people's user ID in bold!

You need to Login to know who's really who.

@dp, playing devils advocate here.... define unfit for purpose when related to ski boots

comfort/someones opinion of volume does not make a product unfit for purpose, liner falling apart, clip falling off shell splitting , now that's unfit for purpose

the fit for purpose argument gets pulled out a lot, but with footwear it is a very strange beast if someone leaves a store with any piece of footwear irrespective of it is a pair of jimmy choos or a ski boot or a trainer, they are deemed to have accepted the goods, comfort/fit is not actually something that is arguable under "fit for purpose" comfort is a strange one as it is a perception (back to the tolerance of compression debate) this combined with a lower level skier not wanting a compresive fit leads to many of the problems that boot fitters see

so i think it is a pretty fine line between whats right, whats not right and whats dangerous

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

@CEM, agree with your principle, but...

Since the boots were purchased with a fitting session... as opposed to, bought 'dry' from a shop/internet, I believe there is an expectation that you will receive a pair of 'fitted' ski boots. Therefore, if the ski boots you take home are by all accounts, too big for you (especially if you can get some independent advice to stand up for that), the shop has not provided you with a pair of 'fitted' ski boots which is what you paid for. So a pair of ill-fitting ski boots is not fit for purpose as a pair of fitted ski boots which is what you were sold.

Whilst I appreciate that comfort is not something arguable under whether an item is 'fit for purpose', as we previously discussed, too much movement in a boot can have an adverse effect on the functionality of the bindings and thus surely since the purpose of a ski boot is to interface your foot with a ski binding, any element of the fit which might interfere with the correct operation of the bindings would thus surely render the boot 'unfit for purpose'?

You'll need to Register first of course.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

@dp, tricky one,

skier level, the x max is a "low volume" boot to all intents and purposes but what is the definition of low volume, and is what the customer feels in store as a really snug fit around the foot actually a really snug fit around the foot to them (maybe not to a more experienced skier) all perception, i could probably look at a load of boots and say yes you could be in a lower volume boot, but if that skier has been skiing around for X years comfortably in that boot with no issues why might they want to change?

if the skiers foot is super skinny and falls out of the parameters of a ski boot in production or in the boot range (back to integrity ) does the shop say, no we dont wan to sell you a boot as your foot doesn't fit what we have or say, this is the best we can offer from what we have i know i have turned people away if we don't have a suitable boot but at what point is it unsuitable... when another shop says so???

After all it is free

@Alastair, wouldn’t like to guess who does more boots Ellis brigham or S&R but when you have 20+ stores and as many staff as they are trying to manage I think they are doing a reasonable job for me/mrs/miss average.
Consistacy is the name of the game, trouble is they have some great boot fitters and some average to pretty poor not really interested but doing it as a job boot fitters, it is probably the biggest reasons that I won’t open a second store, 1 getting good staff, 2 controlling quality

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Why aren't we trying to burn the rental shop?

Most of the rotational force is from the ski not releasing therefore acting as a lever which from my experience of rental shops is probably from old not tested bindings (as in DIN setting probably doesn't correlate to actual release because their gear is so poo-poo).

I don't think slightly too big boots (volume wise, i.e. width) "caused" the fracture and they probably increased the volume after returning with knackered toes and hurting shins.

Help!!

Ankle injury from Snow and Rock purchased boots?

snowHeads Forum Index >>> Equipment Reviews/Questions