"It's Friday And I Need A Good Laugh..."

Dateline: Los Angles, California. (Wouldn't you just know it!?!) 52 year old Marrida Patterson (We're not talking about a Paris Hilton lookalike here) was trying on a tong undergarment from Victoria's Secrets' "sexy little thing" line when allegedly while doing so a small metal heart-shaped embellishment became disengaged from the garment and subsequently reengaged one of her eyes, damaging the cornea. The law suit filed on the ninth of this month specifies that Ms. Patterson's missed several days of work and, according to her attorney, the results of the mishap will be "affecting her the rest of her life." The law suit does not specify the amount of monetary compensatory damages that will be sought, which leads me to assume that Ms. Patterson and her attorney-in-tow are hoping the suit will be settled out of court long before it ever has a chance to reach the courthouse steps. Pity. I'm guessing that would make for some interesting and entertaining courtroom drama...

"Your Honor, the defense would like to call to the stand the plaintiff, Ms. Patterson."

"Now Ms. Patterson, have you on previous occasions purchased merchandise from Victoria's Secret."

"Yes."

"Did you find the products purchased to be satisfactory?"

"Yes."

"Have you ever had an occasion where you determined that a Victoria's Secret product purchased by you for your own personal use was defective in any way?"

"No."

"Is this the undergarment you purchased which you allegedly claimed was the cause of your eye injury, previously introduced to the court as Exhibit A?"

"Yes."

"Is this type of garment an article of underclothing that is typical to your wardrobe?"

The plaintiff's attorney jumps to his feet and objects. "Your Honor, I see no relevance in asking Ms. Patterson what type of undergarments she chooses to wear as a rule. It is a blatant invasion of her privacy."

"You're Honor," replies the defense attorney, "I'm only trying to establish if Ms. Patterson has some working knowledge of and, therefore, an established familiarity on the proper application of this type of garment."

"I'll allow it," responds the presiding judge, "but let's be careful where this line of questioning may eventually lead."

"Yes, your Honor. Ms. Patterson, would you be so kind as to answer my question?"

"Well, I have all types of undergarments of all varieties. My husband likes different kinds and I do too. So, yes, I have a few pairs of this type of underwear."

"How many is a 'few?'''

"Your Honor!" The plaintiff's attorney is on his feet again. "Is it absolutely necessary that the defense attorney badger the witness into stating for the record that she has x-amount of a particular type of pantie in her underwear drawer?"

"Your Honor...I am merely trying to firmly establish that Ms. Patterson has more or less of a rudimentary understanding over an measurable period of time of how to properly put on and wear this type of garment."

"I must sustain the plaintiff's objection, as we can assume that the plaintiff has lived long enough on this earth to figure out how to put on a pair of panties."

"Yes, your Honor. Thank you. Ms. Patterson, have you ever experienced any type of difficulty with any of your other types of underwear?"

"I'm sorry. I don't understand the question.

While putting on any of these other types of underwear that you claim you possess, has there ever been an occasion when anything unexpectedly detached itself from the garment? "

"Not that I can recollect. Perhaps my husband could better answer that question."

"No, no. The court will accept your 'No' answer as being sufficient."

"Now to continue Ms. Patterson, may I assume that you were in a private dressing room when you tried on this garment."

"Yes."

"Was there plenty of room in the dressing room for you to be able to freely try on the garment without any encumbrances?"

"Yes, I think so."

"Did you remove all of your clothing when you tired on the garment?"

"You Honor!! (He's up again). "Do we need to go so far as to establish in what state of attire Ms. Patterson was in at the time she was trying on the article of clothing in question. My God!!"

"Your Honor, please allow me a little leeway on this line of questioning, as it is important to know if she was trying on the garment as she would in her own home, which, as I have observed my own dear wife to do so, is prior to her putting on her coat and hat."

"Answer the question, Ms. Patterson."

"Well...I kept on my bra, but I was naked everywhere else."

"Thank you, Ms. Patterson. Now, would you be so kind as to demonstrate to the court the exact manner in which you attempted to try on the garment?"

"OBJECTION!!"

"SUSTAINED!!"

"I withdraw the question. One final inquiry, Ms. Paterson. You previously stated that you were alone in the dressing room when this incident you allege took place. Is that correct?"

"Yes."

"So, there was no one in the dressing room itself or, to your knowledge, immediately outside of that area?

"Asked and answered, " interjects the plaintiff's attorney.

"So, your claim that a piece of decorative jewelry affixed to the garment just 'flew off" and struck your eye cannot, in fact, be substantiated by any other person? Is that your story?"

"He's badgering the witness again, your Honor."

"It just seems too overly convenient to me that a piece of jewelry that is affixed to thousands of pairs of this manufacturer's type of garment with no prior reported incidents of the decorative adornment ever coming detached, but just happened to do so on Ms. Patterson's pair, and, by her own testimony, no one present at the time of the alleged incident to confirm yea or nay that the incident did in fact occur. Well, I just find it conveniently curious that what Ms. Paterson would have us believe defines all the laws of probability."

"Your Honor, he's giving his closing summation!"

"No more questions."

Me either. I'll stay turned for the final verdict and report back to you...if it ever reaches that point. Have a great weekend.