Didn't you see The Incredibles? when Mr Incredible's belt buckle went kareening around the room breaking things? ricochet, man!

JUNE 17--As she was attempting to put on a Victoria's Secret thong, a Los Angeles woman claims that a decorative metallic piece flew off the garment and struck her in the eye, causing injuries and a new product liability lawsuit against the underwear giant.

Ok, I'll play.
The only way I can see this happening is she got the g-string stuck on her foot, it snapped free, and the metal piece dislodged and hit her in the eye.
If she can't put on her panties without personal injury, she's a real keeper.

Macrida Patterson, 52, alleges that she was hurt last May

Over a year ago.
It took a year for her to decide to file suit?

by a defective "low-rise v-string" from the Victoria's Secret "Sexy Little Thing" line, according to a lawsuit filed last week in Los Angeles Superior Court. A copy of her June 9 complaint, which does not specify monetary damages, can be found below. Patterson's lawyer, Jason Buccat, told TSG that a "design problem"

Not large enough?
Let's be brutally honest.
Is Ms. Patterson slender or a larger woman?
Yes, it makes a difference.
You can't squeeze a size 18 ass into a size 6 g-string.

caused the decorative piece to come loose and strike Patterson in the eye, causing damage to her cornea. He added that the eye injury, which caused Patterson to miss a few days of work, will be "affecting her the rest of her life." Patterson is a traffic officer with L.A.'s Department of Transportation. Prior to the lawsuit's filing, Victoria's Secret officials asked to examine the garment and the decorative piece, but that request was rejected by Patterson's counsel.

The asked to see the item, and were denied?
Why?

For those unfamiliar with "v-strings," the undergarment is the Victoria's Secret variant on the "g-string," which has long been favored in the battle against visible panty lines.

And where did all this happen?
Was it in a VS store, or in the privacy of her own home?
If it was in a store, there should be a report from the store as to what happened.

You call it.

It isn't clever detective work on your part to ask the question that the article was designed to make you ask.

I don't know why her lawyer made that decision--I'm not a lawyer. I imagine that the evidence will be thoroughly examined in court, so I fail to automatically equate this to being suspicious behavior.

But I'm "sure" that this was just an innocent, non-suggestive sentence that the author planted there.

In dar's link, they specify that Victoria's Secret wanted the item to be shipped to their office for examination. The lawyer declined because it would be giving away their only piece of evidence.

Well, duh. I figured it was something like that.

But when you read the article, you can almost hear the ominous, bad-guy music playing when they drop that damning bombshell.

No, they were giving VS's reasoning for not dealing with the complaint, thus forcing the woman to sue.

I have noticed design flaws in undergarments. Like the mock jewelry that twists on the bra strap and scratches the side of your boob. That was my fault for buying the item. I wore them rarely because if worn at work, it caused scratches when I was busy. My fault.

But had I just tried to throw something on and had gotten a serious injury, well, that's open for debate. It could have been a pre-teen in there that suffered, not knowing any better. I would not sue, but I would not begrudge someone who did. If it practically poked my eye out and had flung from it's position out of no fault of my own, well what are you supposed to do? Bring it to the retail clerk/uncaring idiot for inspection? To get something done, about something that caused serious bodily injury you would have to take it to the top, to at least, get it investigated for a recall.

Let's compare it to getting in a car for a test sit at the at the auto dealers and a flaw in the seat belt causing serious harm to your eye ball. (somehow) Should that go unreported?

Victorias "secret" may be- Victoria is designed to draw blood.

I originally thought that the big "secret" was that she was an overly priced, marketable prostitute, but I may be I was wrong.
;)

Imagine being out of work because your underwear injured you in the dressing room? What the hell are you supposed to say at work? How are you supposed to call in and submit your doctor's note to your boss? That's nuts!! "My eye is still bleeding from the underwear boss!!" "Sorry, I know it is a big project, but I was injured at the mall by underwear".

I bet the thing came off like a chinese throwing star whilst she tried to get it around here ankles. I've seen the heavy pointy objects on their undergarments. They should be more concerned about injuring their consumers instead of trying to sell them just anything for high dollar amounts. If they are going to do that they should at least make it functional.

I find this almost plausible given that all the panties I buy from VS just fall apart. One or two wears and the stitches come undone...that's why I only use the free panty cards there anymore, I don't bother buying from them because as expensive as this crap is, it just disintegrates.

Bras are still fair game though. :D

It didn't happen in the store dressing room. She bought them, and it happened later while she was changing after work in the employees' locker room.

Even in that scenario my question still works. It's beside the point....It may be a legitimate lawsuit is all I am saying. It also might not be. But given the poorly designed crap coming from VS, I think it might be.

Do we need a shiny chinese throwing star poorly attached to a piece of spandex to look attractive here?

That design is doomed from the start. If it were your kid seriously injured by their baby pj's it would be alright to question it.

Old friend of mine is a big-time fashion designer in NYC and had a semi-famous line of underwear. He says that Victoria's Secret is that they use the shittiest possible raw materials.

true, but they display those shitty materials on some pretty divine bits and pieces.

More VS shenanigans: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24270780/ Typical and reminiscent of Kodak's blatant infringement of Polaroids patent. During the several years of litigation Kodak still made a fortune even after monetary damages to polaroid, legal fees, and buybacks from consumers of all the cameras and unused film. I think it is just a bean counter thing, notions of integrity and ethics don't really come into play.

Damm, has the bottom dropped out of the hard film market or what? Digital has taken over.