A 52 year-old cop (no, that's not her) from LA was recently blinded (that's what "permanent corneal damage" means, right?) when she put on a Sexy little thing, low-rise v-string thong from Victoria's Secret.
There are some attractive older women out there. And I suspect most of them belong to one of two groups: those who have had cosmetic surgery to keep them attractive or those who are working in an industry that mandates they look good, so the majority of their time is probably occupied with activities related to looking good (applying all sorts of de-agifying goo to their faces, exercising relentlessly, etc). "Policewoman" isn't one of those jobs that I'd put in the second group. And the pay scale isn't quite high enough to be in the first group (it is a union job, so it might be higher than I think).
Nevertheless, Macrida Patterson is a thong wearer. Or was, before she discovered the risks of wearing one. Apparently, if you're not careful, they eject dangerous shrapnel. Or so she claims. This fact has yet to be proven since she won't provide Victoria's Secret with the defective pair in question.
QUOTE
Macrida Patterson, 52, says she was attempting to try on the thong when a decorative metallic piece flew off the garment and struck her in the eye.
Patterson says Victoria's Secret is at fault for the injury she received last month because the product was "defective."
Patterson's attorney, Jason Buccat, chalked the problem up to a "design error."
source
Patterson says Victoria's Secret is at fault for the injury she received last month because the product was "defective."
Patterson's attorney, Jason Buccat, chalked the problem up to a "design error."
source
You can read the actual complaint that was filed with the court ]here.
This is, from the Victoria's Secret web site, the garment that is said to have blinded this poor old woman:
Apparently, Macrida is a bargain bin diver. The Sexy Little ThingsŪ Peek-a-boo v-string is on sale for a clearance price of $8.99 (I don't actually know that she got the "peek-a-boo" version of this garment). I guess this just proves that you get what you pay for. Or maybe it proves that penny-pinching old women shouldn't wear underwear intended for hot, younger women.
Then again, and this is the most likely, maybe it proves that people are litigious bastards who will never accept any responsibility for their own actions and will sue anyone for anything.
