Analyzing Case Law Development at ICAIL 2019
The content discusses the development of case law at the ICAIL 2019 conference, including inconsistent decisions in various cases, a controversy regarding the certainty and changing nature of law, six independence allowance cases, and arguments related to logical similarity and precedent-based decisions.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
ICAIL 2019 DESCRIBING THE DEVELOPMENT OF CASE LAW Authors: Professor Trevor Bench-Capon and John Henderson 1
ICAIL 2019 INCONSISTENT DECISIONS? Name of case Date Facts Outcome Cadillac v. Johnson Claimant injured by a car with Claim failed a manufacturing fault MacPherson v. Claimant injured by a car with Claim succeeded Buick a manufacturing fault Robbins v. Police searched opaque Search suppressed California packages found in a car California v. Police searched closed paper Search permitted Acevedo bags found in a car 2
ICAIL 2019 LEVI: LEVI: A controversy as to whether the law is certain, unchanging, and expressed in rules, or uncertain, changing, and only a technique for deciding specific cases misses the point. It is both. Nor is it helpful to dispose of the process as a wonderful mystery possibly reflecting a higher law, by which the law can remain the same and yet change. The law forum is the most explicit demonstration of the mechanism required for a moving classification system . 3
ICAIL 2019 SIX INDEPENDENCE ALLOWANCE CASES: C1: 4 y.o. C3: 12 y.o. C4: 30 y.o. C7: 17 y.o. C9 20 y.o. Final case 4 y.o. TWO PART DEFINITION Extensional Definition Positive Precedents Negative Precedents C1 Rule: IF child THEN pay IA. 4
ICAIL 2019 The three arguments: Logical similarity The proposition which these cases suggested and which, is therefore, to be deduced from them is Brett MR in Heaven v. Pender [1883] Floodgates: If claims for economic loss were permitted for this hazard there would be no end of claims Lord Denning MR in Spartan Steel v. Martin [1973]. Bright line: In my view, it would be better to adopt a clear-cut rule to the effect that a warrant should not be required Blackmun in Arkansas v. Saunders]. 5
ICAIL 2019 Case 1 Fact: 4-year-old child Arguments: Logical similarity: N/A Floodgates: N/A Brightline: NA Decision: Allow IA Extensional definition: Positive Precedents C.1 Negative Precedents Rule: IF child THEN pay IA 6
ICAIL 2019 Case 3 Fact: 12-year-old Arguments: Logical similarity: C1 and C3 are both children Floodgates: nowadays a 30-year-old might be considered a child Bright line: a child is below working age Decision: allow IA Extensional definition: Positive Precedents Negative Precedents C.1 and C.3 Rule: IF child THEN pay IA 7
ICAIL 2019 Case 4 Fact: 30-year-old Arguments: Logical similarity: a 12-year-old and a 30-year-old are both young, arguably both children Floodgates: if a 30-year-old is a child then so am I Bright line: a child is below working age Decision: Disallow IA Extensional definition: Positive Precedents C.1 and C.3 Negative Precedents C.4 Rule: IF child THEN pay IA 8
ICAIL 2019 Case 7 Fact: a 17-year-old Arguments: Logical similarity: C.3 and C.7 are similar, they concern a 12-year-old and a 17-year-old Floodgates: pay anyone below the age of majority Bright line: pay if minor Decision: Allow IA Extensional definition: Positive Precedents C.1, C.3, C.7 Negative Precedents C.4 Rule: IF minor THEN pay IA 9
ICAIL 2019 Case 9 Fact: a 20-year-old in full-time education. Arguments: Logical similarity: C7 17-year-old and C9 20-year-old. Floodgates: if you pay a 20-year-old, you would have to pay all those that had left school. Bright line: only pay if in full time education. Decision: Allow IA Extensional definition: Positive Precedents C.3, C.7, C9 Negative Precedents C.1, C.4 Rule: IF in full-time education THEN pay IA. 10
ICAIL 2019 Final Case Fact: Another four-year-old child. Arguments: Logical similarity: none available Floodgates: N/A Bright line: N/A Decision: Disallow IA Extensional Definition: Positive Precedents C.3, C7, C.9 Negative Precedents C1 and C.4 Rule: IF in full-time education THEN pay IA 11
ICAIL 2019 TEN OBERVATIONS 1. Different decisions on the same facts are not necessarily inconsistent; 2. The common law rules changes but there is a thread of continuity. 3. The order in which cases arise is important; 4. The floodgate and bright line arguments may consider future, hypothetical cases as well as prior cases; 5. The effect of the new case on the pre-existing rule appears to be disproportionately large as compared to the effect of prior cases; 12
ICAIL 2019 TEN OBSERVATIONS - CONTINUED 6. The measure of success , if there is one, is probably the longevity of the rule; 7. Common law tends to work with a handful of landmark cases rather than with a huge number of ordinary cases, these tend to be the cases in which a rule is established or changed; 8. Common law rules are inherently value-based; 9. Arguments used but not followed in prior cases may be material in subsequent cases; 10. It may take several decisions to find the bright line. 13
ICAIL 2019 THANK YOU 14
