can he sue if he's atheist or agnostic?
If common sense say no, yes you can.
When God can't protect you against idiot, law will protect them.
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants,
[1] also known as the
McDonald's coffee case and
the hot coffee lawsuit, was a 1994
product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the
United States over
tort reform. Although a
New Mexico civil
jury awarded $2.86 million to plaintiff Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman who suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled hot
coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a
McDonald's restaurant, ultimately Liebeck was only awarded $640,000. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days while she underwent
skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment.
Liebeck's attorneys argued that, at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C), McDonald's coffee was defective, claiming it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. McDonald's had refused several prior opportunities to
settle for less than what the jury ultimately awarded.
[2] The jury damages included $160,000
[3] to cover medical expenses and
compensatory damages and $2.7 million in
punitive damages. The trial judge
reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an
appeal was decided.
The case was said by some to be an example of
frivolous litigation;
[4] ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits",
[5] while the legal scholar
Jonathan Turley argued that the claim was "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit".
[6] In June 2011,
HBO premiered
Hot Coffee, a documentary that discussed in depth how the
Liebeck case has centered in debates on tort reform.
[7][8][
dead link]
