As someone who likes to buy lingerie, when I saw the headlines about Victoria’s Secret and some type of lawsuit, I figured I should check it out. In an adventure of her own, 52 year old Macrida Patterson damaged her cornea when a piece of metal holding some type of rhinestone on her thong underwear flew into her eye after she was trying to put it on.

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSKUA04469620080620

A products liability lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles and certainly this sounds ridiculous. 1.) What are the chances that a piece of metal would fly off of a piece of thong underwear? 2.) Does this woman know how to put on underwear? but, 3.) Is there any chance this really could be a logical lawsuit?

When someone files a products liability lawsuit, the claim is that the product is defective in some way. There are three ways a product can be defective either in its design, how it was manufactured or the way the product was marketed. So where does our defective thong fit in? Most likely it is a combination of the way it was manufactured or its design. However, most people are probably wondering about the plaintiff in this case. Doesn’t everyone know how to put on underwear? Why should Victoria’s Secret have any liability if this lady has her own underwear issues? 

Here is a key page from The Smoking Gun, which shows the actual complaint that was filed. 

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0617081secrets4.html

As part of a products liability claim, you will note the plaintiff has to state that the product was “defective” when it left the control of each defendant. The defendants can include the manufacturer, the supplier — anyone in the ”chain of command” the product followed. As for being “defective”, the focus is to show the product does not meet the safety standards expected by the public. Further, if you can show that the defective nature of the product is something that the defendant(s) could have foreseen, despite how the injury actually happened (ie: user error), the manufacturer could still be held liable.  The tricky part about this claim for a defendant is that products liability claims can be considered “strict liability” torts. So, if the product is found defective, the defendant could be liable, period. Regardless of how the plaintiff uses the product. Seems kind of strange doesn’t it. 

Is it defective if a piece of metal pops off your underwear and hits you in the eye?  Again, the issue is strict liability. If it ends up being that the alleged thong was defective, it won’t really matter whether the plaintiff needs some lessons in putting on underwear. Thus is the life of a products liability claim.

I’m sure when everyone hears about this lawsuit, they will roll their eyes as that is what I did. I get it — damaging your cornea probably isn’t fun. But, a lawsuit?