Difference Between Analogy And Analogy In Common Law

1073 Words5 Pages
REASONING BY ANALOGY AND INCREMENTALISM Reasoning by analogy is a pervasive feature of common-law cases. Every volume of reports contains countless examples. This is not at all surprising. Analogy is an honorable, typical device of common sense reasoning, and many legal systems assign to analogy a formal place in their jurisprudence. In the common law, analogy, essentially, gets small recognition; it even lacks an official name. Yet analogy is the very core or seed of common-law growth. Rules change slowly, as courts extend or contract them using analogy. Edward Levi, in his valuable little book on legal reasoning, has given some good illustrations of the common-law use of analogy. Among these is the development of the concept of the ‘’inherently dangerous’’ object in tort law. The rule was that a person injured by some defect in a product might sue the person who sold him the product but not the original manufacturer. But if the product was ‘’inherently dangerous,’’ this limitation did not apply. In an early case, a loaded gun was held to be inherently dangerous, in another case, a defective gun. A defective coach was held not inherently dangerous. An exploding lamp, on the other hand, was. In still another case, plaintiff bought ‘’belladonna, erroneously marked as extract of dandelion’’; he sued the maker and won. Next came defective hair wash. A defective balance wheel on a circular saw, was not, however, imminently dangerous. And so it went, in and out, until the

More about Difference Between Analogy And Analogy In Common Law

Open Document