• I've read about this, and it sounds like they're claiming there was a flaw in the design and something snapped before she even tried it on.
  • This is a crazy law suit. I don't wear panties with metal clasps, ornaments or parts. She is an old, saggy boobed gal and she probably wants to sue so she can afford breast implants. It's just ridiculous.
  • i heard about this, i started lauhging when i saw this. some people just try to get money out of the smallest things. wonder how much she's paying the lawyer for this lawsuit.
  • Is there a link to this story? I would LOVE to read it, LOL!
  • No woman should ever be held responsible for wearing too small panties...that's outrageous!! Even the Bigger Ladies look good in Victoria Secret. Give her credit for trying. Still she has no reason for suing unless a guy was wearing it and something more than meets the EYE was going on.
  • our legal system is to blame for enforcing that a group of people are forced to pass judgment. it might actually lead to enforced thievery... throw it along with all non crimes out of court... the only thing we need the government to do for us is protect the value of the dollar. you can't ruin its value to protect people who you can't protect from everything... we are all vulnerable... even more so when our money is endangered!
  • Well, she didn't claim that it "exploded"... *A Los Angeles woman is suing lingerie manufacturer Victoria's Secret claiming that a faulty staple linking a jeweled-heart decoration to her thong caused her permanent eye damage. Macrida Patterson, 52, said she was putting on her new Victoria's Secret "low-rise v-string" thong when a design problem caused the decorative heart to pop off and hit her in the eye. Claiming permanent damage to her cornea, Patterson filed a product liability lawsuit against the popular chain on June 9 in Los Angeles Superior Court. Video of interview (and panties) here - Obviously a money grab scheme. For "permanent eye damage" she sure looks like she's seeing just fine without any glasses or anything.
  • Juries are crazy..a woman who placed a cup of hot coffee between her legs that she had gotten from a Mcdonald's Restaurant while she was driving, spilled the coffee and burned herself. She sued McDonald's for serving the coffee at too hot a temperature and I believe she won a million bucks..go figure! :(
  • I laugh so hard when I read about cases like these. People will do anything for money and will try to blame anyone for their own simple and/or careless mistakes (even if it's not careless, accidents happen sometimes and it's no one's fault). Like that woman a few years ago who tried to sue McDonalds for her coffee burning her (hello??? coffee is HOT lol and if you tried to drive away with it between your legs and it burned you, it's your own damn fault). That's like opening a can of something, cutting yourself, and suing the company. The company didn't cut you lol; and I know sometimes it's more complicated than that. Of course the company has to ensure safe products and all but there's a difference. For example if a child was riding a bike and the tires were faulty and the child fell off and got hurt in a bike accident, then that can be different. It's a faulty product. But something like this is just simple human error and no one is at fault really. I even read in the article that the woman had washed the panties before, it's not like the metal thing attacked her lol. Anyway I'm done lol.
  • Well, isn't your name ironic. The sad part about this case is that it will probably be settled for some amount. Not knowing the medicals and wage loss involved it's impossible to put a number on it. Then there is the presumed pain and suffering which is completely subjective.
  • Fat is abstract here, but what in not is the suing for every little thing. Next someone will sue because they didn't reinforce the thong for heavier people, or sue the store owner for not letting the customer know that serious injuries can occurr if not worn by the "right" body goes on and on.
  • Basically you can sue for anything. Whether or not you can win is another. This sounds like a ridiculous case. If she were to win that would be a shame. Next time she should take somebody with a good fashion sense with her. May be somebody like VS Angel.
  • I heard about that. This lady was quite large and should not have been wearing a thong. Also, there souldn't be metal things on underwear. I think it looks tacky. But yes, she should be blamed for wearing to small underwear.
  • Hey, to be fair, I would really need to see a picture, or a video, thanks.
  • That's a frivilous lawsuit and hopefully she has to pay back their lawyer fees. It's one thing if she was wearing her size, but the tags on those things are already too big. What now, they're going to have to add a warning label that says: "Wearing a size 3 times too small for your body may cause personal injury?" Cut me a break. I'm sure she got hit in the eye and thought "Cha-ching!!"
  • Figures she's American. What the hell is our problem that we seem to be so preoccupied with suing for the stupidest shit. Smoke 4 packs a day for 40 years it's the cigarette manufacturer's fault that you get lung cancer. Stick a steaming hot cup of coffee between your legs while you're driving It's McDonalds fault when you burn your crotch. Put a thong that's 5 sizes too small for your ass on and in the process break it it's the manufacturers fault that you damaged your eye. When the hell are we Americans going to take some personal resposnibility for our stupid assanine actions and stop blaming everyone else for our misfortunes in life.
  • Wish you had photos.
  • Generally these types of lawsuits are governed by civil tort law. Tort law is the law that dictates proper civil interaction within our society including products liability, negligence, and so forth. The other main claims are most likely related to contract law. She pruchased the panties with certain implied warranties under the law. Generally speaking when consumers purchases goods, under the law those goods come with implied warranties. The 2 generally accepted implied warranties are an implied warranty of merchanability and an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. What was her purpose for the panties? This is a question of fact that may have legal relevancy in the lawsuit. The fact that she was wearing panites that were to small is an issue that the defense attorneys should address in their defense of the personal injury action. If the panites were too small and she had knowledge of the panites being too small, these facts may invalidate the implied warranties that came with the purchase of the panites and may even prevent any civil tort liability. Foreseeability of the injury should be a big issue. Now to answer the question in general terms, if she loses on the contract law issues there will be no liability for the Woman, so she would not be held responsible for wearing panites that were too small. However, if she loses on tort claims (strict products liability, negligence, intentional inflcition of emotional distress, etc.), she will be responsible for the costs of the defense. This could be a lot of money that she could owe Victoria's Secret for defending the litigation if she loses. Here's more info with fancy legal jargon:
  • I'm just wondering where the H*** she had her head if a piece of it hit her in the eye. Or, was someone else wearing it instead?? I'm sure I couldn't get my head down there to be hit by a piece of my underwear if it exploded.
  • read about this some time back, it's amazing the things people try to sue for. If you ask me the jusdge should laugh her out of court but before he does he should fine her for filing a fraudulent case and wasting the time and resources (tax payers money) of the courts.
  • Exactly how short is she that it reached her eye? Where was her face at the time of the event and why?

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy