Law thread

>>1928768
>Why do common law countries depend so much on the concept of liability?

It's literally irresponsible to do otherwise

>>1928779
In Canada, if a kid walks onto my property, climbs into my tree house, falls out and gets hurt. His family can sue me for not securing my private property.
There's an Ontario act about swimming pools, and homeowners can found criminally liable if there's a death in their pool due to not securing their private property. Seems a bit crazy 2 me

>>1928768
>Why aren't civil law countries as litigious as common law countries?
[citation needed]

Seriously, we've no common law here, and I can't even imagine a country being more litigious than ours and still functional.

File: 1460679509498.png (864KB, 769x592px) Image search: [Google]

864KB, 769x592px

>>1928768
Because we aren't to poor to pay for a proper insurance that covers almost everything.

>>1928986
Well yeah, it's an attractive nuisance. Your property, your responsibility.

>>1928768
>Why aren't civil law countries as litigious as common law countries?
Not sure if it's true, or if my explanation is correct:
It's far easier to settle out of court. Why waste time and money for a possibly uncertain outcome, when you can work it out?
People are also generally willing to settle if they know they'd lose at court, and it will spare them some expenses and time. (A good example are asshole neighbors who creep ever so slightly into your yard over a period of time, who will chicken out and move their fence back where it belongs if confronted with maps from official records.)

>>1929020
That doesn't hold anybody liable though

>>1929020
Holding people liable prevents it from happening in the future

>>1929089
>(A good example are asshole neighbors who creep ever so slightly into your yard over a period of time, who will chicken out and move their fence back where it belongs if confronted with maps from official records.)
What the actual fuck?

>>1929257

Pretty much the most normal human behavior in history, if written records are to be trusted.

>>1929062
IF you invited the person that got injured.

Are you liable for every bum or retard that decides to crash on your property?

>>1929244
To a degree.

But then ago you get a lot of cases that are no-fault or where both parties were at fault and don't feel like legal action. In practice insurance leads to insurance companies fighting over liability rather than people which is rather nice.

>>1929263
Creeping national borders? Yeah I suppose, at least before modern cartography.
Neighbours actually moving fucking fences to steal an inch at a time? How do you even move a fence quick enough not to be noticed by your neighbours?

>>1929285
No, I mean neighbors moving boundaries. Not usually fences because fences are pretty rare historically, but boundary marker stones and so on. Of course people noticed, if they hadn't, we wouldn't have records of endless lawsuits about it.

>>1929276
>insurance companies fighting over liability rather than people which is rather nice
In Canada there's the automobile insurance act which calls for no fault insurance so your own insurance company pays for damage even if it wasn't your fault, if it wasn't your fault your insurance premiums don't go up though

This act is meant to prevent insurance companies from going to court all the time

>>1929324
>your insurance premiums don't go up though
yeah but even if it is not your fault, the company will not renew your contract

>>1929264
Thats entirely context dependant. What were they doing? Where do you live? Did you take reasonable steps to secure your property?

>>1929285
>>1929308
You're a teenager who is imagining your suburban neighbor moving his fence onto your clearly delineated square of yard. You're not imagining being a farmer with a big tract of land out in the literal wilderness bordering three other big tracts of land and there are no modern tools or zoning boards.

>>1928768
Why is common law so based when corruption is low?

>>1928768
Common law and civil law are not exclusive; Britain and America both have both.

>>1931861
Not really
There aren't any codified torts

>>1932012
Britain has codified laws (à la Roman law) via Parliament, as well as common law.

>>1932022
Not codified torts though

>>1932030
>>1832012

Civic law is a system based on codified Roman laws. Common law is based on the doctrine of stare decisis and precedent. The partial codification of a common law system is a partial move towards civic law. Codifying torts is fairly irrelevant.

>>1934186
>Codifying torts is fairly irrelevant.
The codification of torts is literally the difference between civil law and common law