Chances are the everyday average Joe doesn’t know too much about law and legal matters, beyond the most basic and obvious matters. It’s exactly for that reason that lawyers are able to make such a booming trade. When people find themselves faced with legal conundrums, they need someone who knows the laws involved and the legal system inside and out to help get them out again. So unsurprisingly, there are a lot of myths and misconceptions about civil law floating about the populace. Some are, admittedly, rotted in some measure of truth. Others are just outright fabrications.
Should you ever find yourself in a situation that requires a working knowledge of civil law, it’s important to know fact from fiction. Making yourself aware of the most common myths about civil law is the first towards gaining a basic working knowledge to help in any future cases.
#1 The McDonalds Coffee Case
You may have heard this floated around from time to time. If so, it usually goes like this: a woman having a meal at McDonalds orders a cup of coffee, and ends up burning herself on it because it’s “too hot”. She ended up getting $8 million from McDonalds, and that’s why we have to remind people coffee might be hot. This is usually followed by a jab at how easy it is to get money from lawsuits, or how stupid some people are to not realize coffee might be hot.
Don’t believe everything you hear around the water cooler.
What’s often not mentioned about this case is that the woman didn’t just singe her tongue on her coffee. She spilt it on her lap and the coffee caused third-degree burns on her thigh. For those who’ve forgotten, that means it was hot enough to burn through all the layers of her skin. That sort of thing requires emergency medical attention. So ask yourself: just how hot was that coffee to be able to do that?
Another thing often mentioned was that McDonalds didn’t just pay upfront the $8 million awarded. The woman initially just wanted her medical bills covered. However, during the course of the proceedings, it was found that McDonalds knew their coffee was being kept at temperatures high enough to cause third-degree burns, yet persisted the practice anyway. Thus, the amount was so inflated because the damages were so grievous, and because McDonalds showed such disregard for the health and safety of their customers.
What this all underlines is this: lawsuits do not usually pay out such high amounts of cash. In most personal injury claims, your winnings may actually be very small. Payments in the region of tens of thousands of dollars and larger are actually quite rare. The McDonalds Hot Coffee Case was the exception by nature of being very exceptional, it is not the rule.
#2 You Must Suffer Physical Damage to have a Case
When people talk of suffering “injury” or “damage”, they have a tendency to take those terms rather literally. Before you can go to court, you need to actually have a physical injury to show for it. So, for example, say you’re at work and you’re being bullied or harassed by a colleague, or even a superior. You’ve reported it to Human Resources, but they’re not doing anything about it. Over time, the harassment causes you emotional stress and prevents you from working. However, you don’t actually suffer anything truly physical from it.
Some would say this means you cannot take anyone to court. After all, how can you quantify feelings? A broken leg can easily be assessed by how much it costs to have it seen to at the hospital. But what does emotional pain cost?
Actually, that’s one of the things that would be settled in a lawsuit. An injury does not have to be physical, it just needs to have damaged the person somehow. And emotional anguish is damage. What it does mean, though, it that lawyers may be more reluctant to take up your case, as it can be hard to exactly assess how much those damages cost. Unless the potential claim is big enough to entice them, it may be hard to find representation.
#3 You Must Always Present Original Copies Paperwork
Actually, this is a bad idea. If you submit an original document when filing a plea, say a birth certificate or an important receipt, there’s actually a chance it could go missing during the process. And then where does that leave you?
This myth roots itself in the idea that, in order to proceed in a civil court, you must have original copies to verify their authenticity. After all, copies could easily be fake or stolen. It’s mistaken, however – most courts are happy to accept photocopies when filing a plea. You will, however, be asked to present originals during the actual hearing. If you can’t provide them, then it doesn’t mean your case won’t go through. It just means your copies have to be verified by a gazetted officer. To help the process, make sure all your copies are clear with identifying marks (such as seals, signatures and barcodes) clearly visible.
#4 It’s Fine to Copy Work if it’s Non-Profit
This only really applies under certain circumstances. Well there are works out there that can be freely copied and distributed – such as documents and works that exist the public domain – in most other cases permission must still be sought from the owners of the work in question before you use the work. Even if you don’t plan to make any money off of the work in question, the fact remains you’re denying the original owner the chance to make money themselves off of it. That counts as copyright infringement and allows the owner to sue for financial losses.
So to use an example. Copying and reproducing copies of Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales is perfectly fine because that work exists in the public domain. It’s owned collectively by the public, and can be used, distributed and adapted freely. However, Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings is a product still owned by Tolkien’s estate and is still held under copyright. Thus using anything from the works – even the word “hobbit” – is a breach of that copyright, even if the use is non-commercial.
#5 You Are Responsible for Your Spouse’s Debts
Again, this myth is only true under a specific circumstance – you’ve entered the debt jointly, have secured the debt against a joint property, or you are a guarantor of those debts. In those instances, you share responsibility for them. However, if the debts exist in solely the other person’s name, then they are solely responsible for it. You are not legally required to pay for any of it.
The law can be confusing as there are so many different scenarios where this can happen or this can’t happen. It can be overwhelming, especially if you are considering filing, or are in the midst of a trial. It is definitely up to you to do your research, but there are things that you won’t and can’t understand without a lawyer. So if you find yourself confused and, reach out to a lawyer, as most of the time they offer a first time free consultation, like David Heil at Heil Law in Orlando Florida.
About the author
Christian Mills, the writer of this article is a professional student and freelance writer who contributes articles for people to have a better understanding of the law and their rights.
