Common law thread. Favourite president setting cases in your

>>1917100
>How does civil code resolve something like that?
Either a representative gets the idea on his own or some citizen starts a... I forget the word. They gather signatures to make a request, you know what that is? So, that proposal goes through the parlament, assembly, thing, whatever, and the representatives make some new law about it, or change an old related law.

So, it's more top-down in that the judicial system is not creative at all but, then again, it can be bottom-up if citizens are civic-minded and active.

>>1917100
>How does civil code resolve something like that?
By not giving money to someone killed in a freak accident.

The concept of liability is the chief social disease of the Commonwealth countries.

>2016
>implying common law and civil are any different

>>1917100

Brazilian here. Our system is historically civil law. But that doesn't mean our Courts can't get creative on hard cases. For instance, our civil code has few articles regarding administrative liability and we have precedents exatcly like Rossy v Westmount.

>>1917100
Every American law student is a huge fan of the Erie Doctrine.

troll.jpg

>>1917161
I'm in Canada(like I assume OP is) and our citizens are not civic-minded nor active in any way towards law/policies/legislation. The latest bill is only getting attention because people think its an "SJW anti-free speech" bill. I myself don't even know how our electoral system works.

>>1917100
You just sue the government (or municipality) because it's their job to take care of growth on public property. If such obligation isn't properly established you can use analogy by applying norms that regulate the damage caused by growth on private property.
Or you call it vis major and fuck Rossy.