Since cost is an issue, yes - they may not be able to (or willing to) replace that one pair they first got. Here’s a quote from a thread about what people buy when they get to prison:
“A good pair of tennis shoes is essential(cost $60.00). The stae issued BoBo’s wear out after 6 weeks and it’s hard to get replacements.”
Now here’s a quote from a Vice article that explains just how much those boots cost in prison.
“And for the real big spenders Timberland work boots can be had for $91.00, Nike High-tops for $72.00 and Skechers cross trainers for $56.00. Imagine a hardened convict in Skechers. Now that is a sight you won’t see everyday.”
Considering that the average prisoner gets capped out (they’re only allowed to spend) about $300/month in the commissary just on food, toiletries, and entertainment - it’s hardly surprising that those nearly $100 boots aren’t getting replaced. The sneakers are a better buy.
And I’ll close with this finding from the 2011 DOC Commissary Study completed by the State of Illinois.
“The Department is adding a charge to the purchase price of the goods to be resold in the commissaries in excess of what is statutorily allowed.” (pg 29 of 143)
Timberland no longer ships product directly to correctional facilities when a consumer is seeking replacement for a defective product. Our new policy, which we have clearly communicated to all the correctional facilities with whom we work, is that consumers will need to provide an address outside the correctional facility for the shipment.
Saying that they “no longer” do it means that they used to.
I really don’t see what all the fuss is about. If the slaves need new shoes, they should ask their masters. It is up to the masters to decide what they really need. Until then, the slaves need to buckle down, do their work, and they will come out better people.
There was a touch of sarcasm in there in case anyone missed it.
Since they’re in a prison, and all sharp objects ( on the ground or on the floor, for example ) are forbidden, I don’t see why the inmates can’t just walk around in their socks.
It could be especially long before inmates who don’t have folks on the outside contributing to their commissary account could be able to buy another pair. Inmates aren’t paid for their work in prison at the same rates that employees in the outside world are used to making. Wages average less than a dollar per hour. That could mean it could be a slow go saving up for a new pair of boots. Stats on prison labor pay here…http://www.prisonpolicy.org/prisonindex/prisonlabor.html
Use of the commissary is considered a benefit given as a result of good behavior. So, you get to have and spend money if you behave well. That means that only those who are “behaving well” will have good shoes.
Yes, but the part I quoted above suggests the prison won’t let the prisoners receive such shipments. What good is the manufacturer’s warranty if the prison won’t let the prisoners receive their replacement?
I think the link you’re missing is that the commissary is also where prisoners get their mailing materials. They buy their stamps, paper, etc. at the commissary. The commissary provided the access for prisoners to be able to mail the boots back to Timberland, and Timberland then mailed the boots directly back to the commissary.
The commissary acted like a shipping office, but Timberland then changed their policy. They altered it so that no direct shipping to correctional facilities would be allowed. We don’t know why. I did find one article that said, “Some inmates fashion shanks from the metal toes of Timberland boots,” so Timberland may have feared legal repercussions if the boots were too easy to replace after being deliberately altered.
FWIW, I know that getting something shipped to a prisoner in America is a PITA. Want to send books? Then it’s got to be from Amazon or B&N, and don’t bother trying to send them from your home address. Is the private prison system now so thinned out for maximum profits that they can’t have someone to check mail for contraband? Looks like I picked the right week to stop sniffing glue sending care packages.
Wait. In another thread aren’t you arguing that there is NEVER any liability for the manufacturer when a third party alters their goods in unauthorized/dangerous ways?
People who purchase Ikea products and modify them are also original purchasers: they’re not buying already-modified products. Similarly, I suspect that Timberland purchasers who modify their boots into shivs have received instructions/advice on how to do this from someone else.
I’m responding once because I oversimplified my answer trying to get a fast response off to you before leaving for a lunch date. While this is the first party, liability STILL doesn’t automatically exist, and this special case is VERY different from IKEA’s.
I really can’t drive that home enough, and now won’t ever respond to another post from you. Seriously - you’re trolling me and I now have wiped you from people I will respond to. (moderator, I’m being trolled from a separate thread).
On to the ONLY extended explanation you will get:
As you so very helpfully provided in your own example on the other thread, SCOTUS has already determined that any changes made to a product after manufacture do not automatically constitute liability, because a company cannot possibly know about or warn people of every eventuality. A change has to be shown as a hazard and then a company has to fail to act on that knowledge for liability to exist.
For example… THIS CASE where people stated in an article that boots are being made into weapons. At that point, the manufacturer may have liability because they know that the hazardous defect exists. (Their liability is to either make the defect go away, or notify the public of the defect - the action depends on the defect itself.) Alterations not resulting in known defects (like IKEAhacks) are a wholly different issue - because they aren’t resulting in any damages. Should any changes on the IKEAhackers page result in a DAMAGING change, it STILL wouldn’t get IKEA sued. Companies have a reasonable amount of time to change packaging to include new warnings about newly found defects. All IKEA would have to is update their packaging to tell people not to do the hack.
In THIS CASE, it may be that Timberland opted to stop making boots available to prisoners because they couldn’t change the steel toes (a necessary component of manufacture), and they were made aware that a hazardous defect existed in that situation. Outside of prisons, knives can be had for far less than $90, so there’s little risk that people will use them in that fashion.
I haven’t posted anything about the SCOTUS or what they’ve said about products liability, for the very good reason that products liability is state law, and not federal law. The decision you are referring to is from NY state court.
And as was the point in the Ikea thread, manufacturers are responsible for foreseeable uses and hazards. They do not need actual knowledge, otherwise plausible deniability would be the standard and manufacturers would be incentivized to not think about potential hazards and dangers.
OK. What is the defect here? Products liability (in NY, at least) has three main prongs: manufacturing defects, design defects, and defective notices. Manufacturing defects cover situations where the product was made so poorly that it didn’t do its job and doesn’t conform to the design specification in a dangerous way. A steel toe boot that crumpled under minimal pressure and crushed a foot would be an example. Steel toes being converted to shivs is not a manufacturing defect. Design defects are when there are alternate designs that are safer, cost-effective, and practical. Having steel in steel toes is more or less unavoidable, and while maybe there are safer composites that could be used they really aren’t cost-effective or practical given the small market that will use steel toes as shivs. The third theory is the notice/warning defect, but this requires that warnings be given if the safety risk would not be apparent to consumers. When you make a knife from a piece of steel it’s pretty clear that the knife can be used to cut, stab, and injure. Indeed, that’s the entire purpose.
Again, you don’t have to know there is a defect. The risk simply has to be foreseeable.
This assumes that the defect is in the warning, and not in the design. Maybe an Ikea hack is to use some pasteboard Ikea product as a platform for when you’re in the bath. Because Ikea knows of the Ikea hackers site and actually knows of this usage, it is definitely a foreseeable usage. If their pasteboard softens in the humidity and causes something to fall into the bath and injure the customer, there may a design defect (or warning defect, if alternate design isn’t cost effective and practical) claim against Ikea for this foreseeable use of their product.
It’s kind of hard to say that Timberland has stopped making boots available to prisoners when it appears they are the exclusive supplier of boots to prison commissaries.
