EXPLAINED THE COMMON LAW FOUNDATIONS

This article is written by Akshara Maheshwari of 3^rd Semester of Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

ABSTRACT

Common law is a fundamental component of the legal systems in many countries, particularly those that are influenced by the British legal tradition. Common law has developed over centuries from its origins in medieval England to become a sophisticated and flexible body of legal precedent. This article examines the fundamental principles of common law as well as its historical development and contemporary applicability. Common law legal systems have their roots in several centuries ago. In actuality, the common law system as we know it today originated in England during the Middle Ages. In many countries today, such as the US, Canada, India, and Australia, common law is still extensively utilized to settle legal disputes.

Keywords

Evolution, Characteristics, Civil Statutory Law, Influences, Challenges, Future Aspects.

INTRODUCTION

One of the three main categories of legal systems in the world is the Common Law system. The other two are religious law (based on religious texts) and civil law (based on codes). Anglo-Saxon law and, to a lesser degree, the Norman conquest of England, which brought legal ideas from Norman law—which originated in Social law—influenced the development of common law in England. All citizens, regardless of status or rank, are governed by the same set of laws under our common law system, and the use of governmental power is constrained by these laws. The Supreme Court has the authority to examine legislation, but only to ascertain if it complies with the requirements of the Constitution.[1]

Common law, sometimes known as “case law,” is a body of precedents and legal doctrines derived from court decisions rather than from written laws or statutes. The fundamental tenet of common law is that it is founded on judicial precedents, meaning that decisions made in previous cases direct and impact the decisions made in subsequent cases. On the other hand, codified statutes and comprehensive legal codes form the foundation of civil law systems. Common law is based on the Latin phrase stare decisis, which means “to stand by things decided.” It mandates that judges follow established precedents when making decisions. The idea in question provides a stable basis for resolving disputes by guaranteeing consistency and predictability within the legal framework.

A “body of law” that originates from court decisions rather than from laws or regulations is known as common law. Common law, however, is often more complex than that. Common law is based on a legal principle known as stare decisis, which is a Latin phrase that roughly translates to “to stand by things decided”. Stare decisis is just a fancy way of saying that judges and courts must follow earlier decisions and rulings, or caselaw, when handling cases that are similar in the future. For instance, if a court renders a decision based on a certain set of facts, it must abide by that decision in the future when it comes to ruling on the same or a closely related matter. Similarly, rulings from higher courts, such as the supreme court of a jurisdiction, usually have binding effect on lower courts within that same jurisdiction.

EVOLUTION OF COMMON LAW SYSTEM

In the eleventh century, following the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, common law was first instituted. Until then, English law was a patchwork of local traditions and customs. William the Conqueror led the Norman Conquest and instituted a more centralized legal system with the intention of unifying legal practices throughout England. Common law was shaped in large part by King Henry II, who ruled from 1154 to 1189.[2] He established a unified legal system by appointing itinerant judges to travel the country and adjudicate cases. These judges’ decisions were recorded and eventually formed the basis of common law. Henry II’s attempts to standardize court rulings and legal procedures contributed to the development of a cogent body of law that could be applied uniformly throughout England.

As courts expanded and enhanced their legal doctrines over the ages, common law evolved. The legal reforms of the 19th and 20th centuries, like the Judicature Acts of 1873–1875, which unified different legal branches and expedited court procedures, further modernized the common law system.

KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMON LAW SYSTEM AND ITS PRACTICE

One distinctive feature of common law is its reliance on judicial precedents. Courts must follow the rules outlined in previous rulings to guarantee that cases that are similar are handled similarly. This system not only promotes equity and consistency but also allows legal principles to be adjusted to accommodate evolving societal needs. Another aspect is the significance of adversarial legal proceedings. In common law jurisdictions, the courtroom serves as a battlefield were opposing parties present evidence and arguments, with the judge acting as an impartial arbiter. This adversarial system contrasts with the inquisitorial method utilized in many civil law nations, where judges actively participate in case investigations.

The flexibility of common law is one of its main benefits. By giving judges, the ability to interpret and apply legal principles to novel situations, it fills in the gaps left by statutes. This flexibility is especially important in an era of rapid technological and social change, when strict legal codes may not be able to keep up. Common law, for instance, has been crucial in resolving contemporary technological concerns like intellectual property and privacy. Courts have used common law ideas to develop doctrines that address cutting-edge problems like data breaches and online defamation. This dynamic approach allows the legal system to remain relevant and responsive to contemporary issues.

COMMON LAW EXAMPLES

On July 27, 1934, Harry Tompkins was walking along a little path next to the Erie Railroad tracks in Hughes town, Pennsylvania. As a train approached, Tompkins was struck by something protruding from one of the railcars, which caused him to fall and crushed his arm beneath a wheel. Tompkins filed his civil lawsuit in federal district court because the train was operated by a corporation that was registered in New York. The district court judge who heard the case did so in conformity with then-current federal law, not common law of Pennsylvania or New York. Federal common law applied the standard of “ordinary negligence” to determine the duty of care owed by the railroad to non-employees. According to common law in Pennsylvania, the scene of the accident, the railroad is required to provide trespassers with a “wanton negligence” duty of care, which requires evidence of a more serious level of negligence. The court awarded Tompkins damages after reaching a favorable decision.

Before the Tompkins v. Erie Railroad case, it was decided that cases heard in federal court in diversity—that is, cases filed in federal court because they involve multiple states—would be subject to the state’s statutory law. On the other hand, a federal court hearing a case in diversity had also decided not to apply the state’s common law, or precedent, to the case. The railroad appealed to the US Supreme Court after first filing an appeal with the appellate court. After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court determined that when evaluating state law claims in diversity, the federal district court should apply state common law rather than creating new federal common law.

This issue was noteworthy because it was an attempt by the Supreme Court to deal with the issue of “forum shopping,” which occurs when plaintiffs in cases involving multiple jurisdictions file their lawsuit in the state or jurisdiction whose laws will best serve their interests. With this decision, the Court eliminated federal civil procedures and established a rule that federal common law could only be applied to cases that were clearly federal in nature, or cases involving diversity.

COMMON LAW V. CIVIL STATUTORY LAW

Common law and civil statute law systems are very different from one another. Common law systems base their rulings largely on earlier rulings in cases that are similar to one another. In a system based mostly on statutes, rulings are derived from those statutes. This renders the process of creating and passing laws obsolete. Common laws do not usually become statutory laws that are enforceable by law enforcement or enforcement agencies, even though they do evolve over time because of judicial decisions and are referenced in subsequent decisions. Common laws take time to become widely known and to exert their influence. Conversely, statutes are derived from the legislative process, wherein representatives of the people draft and approve laws and ordinances.[3] The text of these new laws is typically applied in court, and once they become operative, law enforcement or other governmental bodies are empowered to enforce them. Court opinions serve as the foundation for common law, so parties to a civil lawsuit may compare cases that have set precedent. Legal statutes forbid making comparisons. For instance, sentencing, permissible monetary damages, deadlines and statutes of limitations are all governed by civil statutory laws.

Both the common law and the civil statutory law systems are used in many nations. The legal system in the United States combines the two, requiring the courts to follow precedent when deciding cases not covered by statutes and applying statutory laws when appropriate.

INFLUENCE OF COMMON LAW SYSTEM IN GLOBAL DIASPORA AND CURRENT CHALLENGES

The influence of common law is not limited to England. Common law ideas were introduced to many nations throughout the world by the British Empire’s colonial expansion, including the US, Canada, Australia, and India. Even while they have created their own distinct legal traditions, many former British colonies have kept aspects of common law in their legal systems. Common law ideas form the cornerstone of the American legal system, even though they coexist with a sizable corpus of statutory law. U.S. courts adhere to the stare decisis doctrine, drawing from precedents set by state and federal courts alike. Like this, nations like Australia and Canada combine common law ideas with their statutory frameworks to create hybrid legal systems that take into account both past customs and current requirements.

Even with its advantages, common law has certain drawbacks. Reliance on court precedents can occasionally result in legal rigidity, as decisions made today may be influenced by out-of-date precedents. Furthermore, the increasing intricacy of contemporary legal matters frequently calls for legislative action to address issues that common law may not be sufficient to resolve. Numerous common law jurisdictions have implemented legal reforms to strike a balance between legislative innovation and judicial precedent in response to these difficulties. To keep the legal system flexible and responsive, legislative bodies may, for instance, pass laws that amend or clarify common law principles.

FUTURE OF THE COMMON LAW

In the past, the law served as a referee in a free market and was used to resolve individual disputes by applying widely accepted concepts of right and wrong. These days, laws are frequently the product of social pressure on the government or serve as a tool of governmental policy. As a result, law is becoming more administrative.

An additional trend that is probably going to continue is the growing dependence on codification and statute law as tools for legal development. The English Law Commission once contemplated creating a code of contracts, and numerous statutes have addressed tort law. But this was not necessary for harmonizing the member states’ laws, and Britain’s exit from the EU in 2020 rendered the issue irrelevant. Changes include the addition of human rights as a fundamental component to UK domestic law and the expansion of international tribunals. Such a drastic change is hampered in the United States by the states’ legal sovereignty, although consistent state laws are becoming more prevalent.

Given the prevailing trend in contemporary society to protect individuals from the unforeseeable consequences of their actions, the judge-made tort law may eventually be superseded, as it did in New Zealand for a while, by an extensive system of public or private insurance comparable to the mandatory third-party risk insurance that is currently offered for cars. However, the experience from New Zealand indicates that this is a costly substitute. In other areas as well, public law is becoming more prevalent than private law.[4] For instance, in real estate development, public zoning or urban planning regulations already hold greater weight than the customary limitations imposed by individual neighboring landowners. Older private laws based on the rights of spouses and children are frequently superseded by public welfare laws pertaining to social security, pensions, and child care and adoption.

It is still possible to identify English and American law as partners with a common origin in common law that existed prior to the 18th century. However, they are becoming more and more different, and English law—whether it exists in the EU or not—now bears far more particular resemblance to the legal systems of other continental European nations than was previously acknowledged.

CONCLUSION

Common law serves as evidence of the enduring impact of judicial decision-making on the development of legal principles. From its medieval origins to its contemporary applications, common law has demonstrated an amazing ability to adapt and evolve. Its reliance on precedents, adversarial procedures, and flexibility in addressing new issues emphasize its importance in the international legal system.

Finally, the process of how common law originated in Europe and America and then spread to other continents—especially Asia—could be seen. Since common law formed the foundation for many legal systems around the world, it was a major catalyst for the development of legal systems in many countries, most notably India. The common law system had some shortcomings, but they paled in comparison to its benefits. Today, most people use the legal system that the British Empire brought to the world. In nations like the United States, India, and the United Kingdom that have a combination of common law and civil war systems, approximately one-third of the world’s population lives.

REFERENCES

1. Dr. Gantepaka Srinu and Dr. JVN Mallikarjuna, The legal system in India: A historic perspective, 9(1) IJSR 73-75, 2023.
2. Abhijeet Aaryan, Legislation & Common Law: Indian Legal System, LEGAL SERVICES INDIA (Sep. 1, 2024, 6:20 PM), https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/587/Legislation-&-Common-Law-:-Indian-Legal-System.html#:~:text=Common%20law,%20also.
3. S M Naveen, An Analysis Of The Relationship Between Common Law And Civil Law In India, 5(II) IJLLR, 2023.
4. Justice Om Prakash, Common Law Courts and Present Justice Delivery System, IJTR, 1995, https://ijtr.nic.in/articles/art6.pdf#:~:text=The%20common%20law%20has.

---

[1] Dr. Gantepaka Srinu and Dr. JVN Mallikarjuna, The legal system in India: A historic perspective, 9(1) IJSR 73-75, 2023.

[2] Abhijeet Aaryan, Legislation & Common Law: Indian Legal System, LEGAL SERVICES INDIA (Sep. 1, 2024, 6:20 PM), https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/587/Legislation-&-Common-Law-:-Indian-Legal-System.html#:~:text=Common%20law,%20also.

[3] S M Naveen, An Analysis Of The Relationship Between Common Law And Civil Law In India, 5(II) IJLLR, 2023.

[4] Justice Om Prakash, Common Law Courts and Present Justice Delivery System, IJTR, 1995, https://ijtr.nic.in/articles/art6.pdf#:~:text=The%20common%20law%20has.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.