In Florida, Judge Patricia Kinsey ruled recently in the case of Albert Freed who sued a men’s briefs manufacturer claiming he was injured on holiday by their badly designed underwear. He claimed the briefs “gaped open and acted like a sandbelt on my privates”.

In a judgement she probably did not anticipate making while at law school, Judge Kinsey was required to engage in a detailed analysis of the relationship between male anatomy and male underwear. An alleged design defect supposedly exposed Freed to beach sand that had accumulated in swimming trunks he was wearing over his briefs. Judge Kinsey doubted the contention that the briefs had opened “whereupon the edges of the opening abraded his penis like “’sandpaper belts’”.

Why had Freed spent two weeks on holiday aggravating the problem without reporting it to his wife? He said he was so excited about this holiday to Hawaii – which he had won – that he did not want to complain about his debilitating pain until they got home. Asked in cross-examination why he had not inspected the problem early to assess the possible dangers, he replied that he was a “belly man” and could not see his penis.

The manufacturer called a scientist to show the briefs were safe but Freed, who represented himself, called no expert witnesses. The court, though, wanted some independent evidence about normal penile sensitivity and what was standard practice for men when adjusting themselves anatomically after donning briefs.

Extraordinarily, the sole man among many female spectators in the public gallery was asked by the court for his opinion and he obliged. More extraordinarily, the law report notes that the man was “a prominent male criminal defence lawyer” who was just passing time in the gallery. The judgment thanks the lawyer for being a “good sport” in giving evidence and for his “surprisingly candid testimony” when answering intimate questions.

Judge Kinsey dismissed the claim, noting that Freed had failed to prove the link between his alleged injury and the briefs’ design. “The uncontroverted expert testimony” she ruled “was that once a man’s genitalia are adjusted in his briefs, ‘vertical tension’ is far greater than ‘horizontal tension’ and there is no tendency for the fly to ‘gap’”. She also said that Freed’s peculiar method of dressing (he puts his briefs into his trousers and then pulls them both on together) might have aggravated his personal discomfort.

According to official data on accidents, underwear injures many Britons every year. In 2002, for example, 369 people were caused serious injury by underpants or knickers. Getting dressed or undressed in the dark or while impaired might explain those injuries. Less clear though is how 472 people were hospitalised by an item in the class “Hat, scarf, shawl, hankie”.

Professor Gary Slapper is Director of the Centre for Law at the Open University. English Law, by Slapper & Kelly, is published by Routledge-Cavendish

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure