I'm going with emotionally unbalanced. Or they don't know how to deal with very minor stress. My sister freaks out on the little things so often I don't talk to her anymore.
McDonalds did not appeal and win...the issue was settled privately post-court. And (WARNING - SOAPBOX!!) that woman had one heck of a case. This is one of the most misunderstood cases presented in pop culture, easily. People hear about it anecdotally, draw conclusions without researching the case, and slam that poor woman. Can you imagine living the rest of your life knowing that, when people think of "unreasonable lawsuit", your name/case comes up?
Selected facts of that case, that were the basis for her win:
A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.
McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks.
Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
Based mainly on learning about this case, I often wonder now when I hear a story about someone being unreasonable, how slanted the presentation is. A media report, or a cultural/popular anecdote, rarely tells the whole story!
Rant over.
Last edited by mandalinn82; 08-21-2008 at 03:36 PM.
I was coming in to post what Amanda said. McDonalds knew their coffee was too hot for safety and didn't lower the temperature. An elderly woman in a passenger seat was terribly terribly burned. She didn't try to "soak" the big corporation with deep pockets for millions, she just wanted her doctor bills paid! Poor lady.
McDonalds did not appeal and win...the issue was settled privately post-court. And (WARNING - SOAPBOX!!) that woman had one heck of a case. This is one of the most misunderstood cases presented in pop culture, easily. People hear about it anecdotally, draw conclusions without researching the case, and slam that poor woman. Can you imagine living the rest of your life knowing that, when people think of "unreasonable lawsuit", your name/case comes up?
Selected facts of that case, that were the basis for her win:
A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.
McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks.
Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
Based mainly on learning about this case, I often wonder now when I hear a story about someone being unreasonable, how slanted the presentation is. A media report, or a cultural/popular anecdote, rarely tells the whole story!
Rant over.
AGREED. I hate when folks cite this case as a friviolous suit.
as to the OP
depends
as to your BIL that sounds OCD to me... so i'll vote for mentally unstable.
In my experience, people make a big deal out of things that are really important to them, for whatever reason. It may not be (in fact, it almost never IS) what is important to ME, but it must be to them for reasons I may not know about.
Mountains out of mole hills.?
.
