Legal Definitions - casus male inclusus

The Latin term casus male inclusus refers to a situation where a law, rule, or contract's literal wording appears to cover a specific scenario, but applying that wording strictly leads to an outcome that was clearly not intended or is contrary to the overall purpose of the law, rule, or contract.

It describes a "case wrongly included" because while the situation falls within the exact language used, enforcing that language would produce an absurd, unjust, or counterproductive result, going against the spirit or underlying intent of the provision.

• Example 1: City Ordinance

  Imagine a city passes an ordinance stating, "No vehicles are permitted on the walking paths within the municipal park." The clear intent is to prevent cars, motorcycles, and other motorized transport from endangering pedestrians or damaging the paths. However, a child who uses a motorized wheelchair for mobility wishes to enjoy the park's walking paths. Literally, a motorized wheelchair is a "vehicle." If the ordinance were strictly applied, the child would be banned from using the paths. This would be a casus male inclusus because, while the wheelchair technically fits the definition of a "vehicle," the unintended consequence of denying accessibility to individuals with disabilities goes against the broader public policy of inclusion and the spirit of creating a public park for all citizens, which was not the ordinance's original aim.

• Example 2: Construction Contract

  Consider a construction contract for a new office building that includes a clause stating, "All plumbing fixtures installed must be brand new and purchased directly from a certified supplier." During the project, a minor error in the initial design requires the relocation of a newly installed, perfectly functional sink and faucet from one restroom to an adjacent one. The contractor suggests reusing the fixture, as it was only installed days ago, is in pristine condition, and would save time and material costs. However, the client insists on a strict interpretation of the contract, arguing that the relocated fixture is no longer "brand new" in its new location, nor is it "purchased directly" for that specific new location. This situation presents a casus male inclusus. The literal application of the clause would force the purchase of an identical new fixture, despite a perfectly good, recently installed one being available. This outcome is contrary to the contract's underlying purpose of ensuring quality and efficiency, leading to unnecessary expense and delay without any actual benefit in terms of quality or performance.