Zara’s wide-leg pants may be trending for all the wrong reasons — but could a viral fashion mishap become a legal issue?
People are tripping (literally) over Zara’s “death trousers.” Can lawyers be far behind? As two smarty pants – litigation attorneys – at Practus, we offer our hot take on the reported dangers of summer’s hottest pants and get to the bell bottom of the legal issues that could be in play.
Zara’s wide-leg trousers proved an instant hit with shoppers. The lightweight fabric and high fashion look paired with a comparatively low price under $50. Jean-ius! Women were falling over themselves to grab these pants, which was great – until they actually started falling over.
The Pants that Launched a Thousand Trips
A viral phenomenon emerged on TikTok of women sharing videos of the injuries they received after tripping in the pants. Posts with the hashtag “Zara death trousers” spread everywhere as owners complained the pants’ flowy hems easily catch under shoes on stairs or slick surfaces. We’re guessing escalators posed dangers too. TikTok became a patchwork of scrapes, bruises, and even broken bones.
Could Zara Be Caught With Its Pants Down?
This begs the legal question. Is there a duty to warn potential customers, “Caution, wearing these pants may be hazardous to your health?” Plaintiffs lawyers have been known to pull creative arguments out of their back pockets. Defense lawyers, meanwhile, can be just as creative with warnings that help insulate manufacturers from liability. A duty to warn can arise if it is reasonably foreseeable that normal use or misuse of the product could cause injury.
If the manufacturer knows or should know that fashionistas are wearing their pants too long, but were slackers about adding a warning label, it could be found liable for those injuries. By the same token, a carefully crafted warning could save the manufacturer from having to pay for all these falls. Perhaps a warning such as “A hem, CAUTION: Wearing pants that drag on the ground can create a tripping hazard. Wear proper length pants. ” Maybe that’s hitting below the belt.
Now, if the hazard is obvious, a warning is not necessary. But what’s obvious to you may not be as obvious to that creative, plaintiffs lawyer, or more importantly, the jury. Then again, we haven’t noticed any warning labels on sky-high heels.
The legal bottom line? Viral fashion mishaps do not automatically create product liability, but they can raise familiar questions about foreseeable use, obvious hazards, and whether a manufacturer should have warned consumers about a potential tripping risk. In other words, even trendy pants can leave companies exposed if the risk is not properly addressed.
Editor’s note: Elliot Belilos asked that since bell bottoms are apparently back in, is it time for him to break out his tie-dye shirts? His wife says “Absolutely not.”
Frequently Asked Questions or The Legal Skinny on Viral Pants
Can clothing manufacturers be liable for tripping injuries?
Potentially, if a product creates a foreseeable hazard and the manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions.
What is a failure-to-warn claim?
A failure-to-warn claim alleges that a manufacturer knew or should have known about a product risk but did not adequately warn consumers.
Are obvious hazards exempt from warning requirements?
Often, manufacturers do not need to warn about risks that are open and obvious, though what counts as “obvious” can depend on the facts.
Could viral TikTok complaints affect product liability claims?
Viral complaints may help show awareness of a potential hazard, especially if they suggest a pattern of similar incidents.
More about Elliot Belilos
More about Steve Young
