In Session: Sidebar  « Back to Blog Main
June 18, 2008
Posted: 04:01 PM ET

NEW YORK — We haven’t reported on a thong since Monica Lewinsky’s under-garment of choice was uncovered during the impeachment of President Clinton. Well, the flimsy clothing item is once again front and center in the news.

A Los Angeles woman has filed a lawsuit against lingerie-maker Victoria’s Secret, claiming she was injured by one of the company’s thongs. The garment in question is called the “low-rise v-string” from the Victoria’s Secret Sexy Little Thing line. Macrida Patterson, 52, maintains she was attempting to try on the underwear when a decorative metallic piece flew off and struck her in the eye, causing her permanent corneal damage.

The question is whether Victoria’s Secret should be held responsible for the injury because it sold a “defective” product with a “design error” that almost blinded Patterson. Shouldn’t the woman be compensated for loss of wages, hospital and medical expenses if she was using the garment in the manner it was intended? The court documents can be found on TheSmokingGun.com Web site.

Victoria’s Secret asked to examine the thong in question, but Patterson’s attorney denied the request. One does have to weigh Patterson’s responsibility in all all this and wonder just how this small decorative item could have been catapulted into Patterson’s eye and finally, whether this belongs in an overburdened Los Angeles Superior Court system.

–Bob Regan, In Session senior executive producer

Filed under: Bob Regan • Uncategorized


Share this on:
BOO BOO BUNNY   June 18th, 2008 5:44 pm ET

TELL her they don’t belong on her head, they belong on the other end. I imagine now they’lll have to put warning labels and instructions on them next.

Kim   June 18th, 2008 7:02 pm ET

Thats stupid. The woman is 52 years old and should not be wearing a thong. How the hell could something fly off a pair of underwear and hit her in the eye? Depending on how tall this lady is there has to be a 2.5-3 foot difference from where the underwear should be and her face. VS should not be held responsible. Some people will sue anyone for anything.

A Camp   June 18th, 2008 7:26 pm ET

Maybe if she had stuck with more age appropriate undies , she wouldn’t have had so much trouble !

Stormi   June 19th, 2008 8:54 am ET

OMG!!! The court systems are already clogged with unnecessary lawsuits and now this woman is adding yet another one to a growing list. Come on get a life, if you know how to put on your underwear this wouldn’t happen. How can you be putting on your underwear and something flies in your eye? This should be on America DUMBIEST videos!!!!!!!!

Cris   June 19th, 2008 11:06 am ET

Maybe the were not her size???

DF   June 20th, 2008 11:49 am ET

Brings new meaning to,”You’ll put your eye out with that.”
D

Gina S   June 20th, 2008 4:09 pm ET

If it flew off, it was defective. How many children are injured by defective toys and get compensated!. I have trouble understanding why the item was not offered up for examination in a controlled environment. How many more people need toget injured before recalling the item. Having an eye njury is just horrible. This should be settled out of court!

Pam   June 25th, 2008 2:16 am ET

I’m curious to know if Ms Patterson is a size 20 and trying
her best to fit into a size 2 thong! If that’s the case I think VS
should ban her from ever shopping in their store again.

Spider   July 30th, 2008 9:21 pm ET

“What’s good for the many, outweighs the good of the one.” Mr. Spock

Think of all the people who would have suffered traumatic blindness had a 52 year old woman been allowed to wear a thong.

Leave Your Comment


 

Comments are moderated by CNN, in accordance with the CNN Comment Policy, and may not appear on this blog until they have been reviewed and deemed appropriate for posting. Also, due to the volume of comments we receive, not all comments will be posted.


subscribe RSS Icon
About this blog

Sidebar takes you behind the scenes of the day's legal headlines with breaking news and in-depth analysis from In Session's anchors and correspondents.

Contributors
Ashleigh Banfield
Co-anchor of the daily trial program Banfield and Ford: Courtside
Ashleigh Banfield
Jack Ford
A former prosecutor and co-anchor of the daily trial program Banfield & Ford: Courtside
Jack Ford
Lisa Bloom
Anchor of the daily trial program Lisa Bloom: Open Court
Lisa Bloom
Jami Floyd
Former defense attorney and anchor of her own daily program Jami Floyd: Best Defense
Jami Floyd
Fred Graham
Senior Editor Fred Graham covers legal news in Washington, D.C.
Fred Graham
Jean Casarez
Attorney Jean Casarez covers trials around the country
Jean Casarez
Beth Karas
Former prosecutor Beth Karas covers trials around the country
Beth Karas
Categories
CNN Comment Policy: CNN encourages you to add a comment to this discussion. You may not post any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic or other material that would violate the law. Please note that CNN makes reasonable efforts to review all comments prior to posting and CNN may edit comments for clarity or to keep out questionable or off-topic material. All comments should be relevant to the post and remain respectful of other authors and commenters. By submitting your comment, you hereby give CNN the right, but not the obligation, to post, air, edit, exhibit, telecast, cablecast, webcast, re-use, publish, reproduce, use, license, print, distribute or otherwise use your comment(s) and accompanying personal identifying information via all forms of media now known or hereafter devised, worldwide, in perpetuity. CNN Privacy Statement.
Home  |  World  |  U.S.  |  Politics  |  Crime  |  Entertainment  |  Health  |  Tech  |  Travel  |  Living  |  Business  |  Sports  |  Time.com
Podcasts  |  Blogs  |  CNN Mobile  |  Preferences  |  Email Alerts  |  CNN Radio  |  CNN Shop  |  Site Map
© 2008 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by WordPress.com