A Florida woman and her husband have filed a lawsuit against Walmart after she says that a dress she bought at the Walmart Supercenter in Haileah Gardens three years ago gave her heart palpitations and a severe rash that resulted in the cessation of marital relations between the couple.

The day after she wore the dress, Aracely Gonzalez claims that she "developed an excruciatingly painful red rash over large portions of her body, which required her to go to Palm Springs General Hospital” where an allergist "informed Gonzalez that the cause of the dermatitis was the dress that she had purchased at Walmart."


Eight days later, she was forced to return to the hospital with heart palpitations.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed in Miami-Dade County Court, “The painful rash lasted for a period of several months, with several outbreaks.”

The pain inflicted by rash wasn’t just physical…

In addition to Gonzales seeking damages for negligence, strict liability and breach of warranty, her husband also seeks damages “for loss of consortium” -- a legal euphemism for sexual intercourse.

This is a more in-depth legal description of the term:

“Such loss arises as a claim for damages when a spouse has been injured and cannot participate in sexual relations for a period of time or permanently due to the injury, or suffers from mental distress, due to a defendant's wrongdoing, which interferes with usual sexual activity. Thus, the uninjured spouse can join in the injured mate's lawsuit on a claim of loss of consortium, the value of which is speculative, but can be awarded if the jury (or judge sitting as trier of fact) is sufficiently impressed by the deprivation.”

[Courthouse News] [Legal Dictionary]