Legal Definitions - droit common

Droit common is a legal term originating from Law French that directly translates to common law. It refers to a legal system where laws are primarily developed by judges through their decisions in individual cases, rather than solely by legislative bodies creating statutes. When a judge makes a ruling, that decision often becomes a precedent, meaning it serves as a guide or binding authority for future courts deciding similar cases. This creates a body of law that evolves over time through judicial interpretation and the application of principles established in previous court decisions.

Here are some examples illustrating how droit common (common law) operates:

• Establishing a New Duty of Care: Imagine a situation where a new type of business activity, such as operating a drone delivery service, causes an unforeseen type of harm to individuals, and there isn't a specific statute covering this exact scenario. A court hears a case brought by an injured party and rules that the drone delivery company had a "duty of care" to operate safely and prevent such harm. This judicial decision then becomes a precedent. In subsequent, similar cases involving drone operations, other courts will look to this ruling as a foundational principle, applying the established duty of care to ensure consistent justice and guide future conduct.

• Interpreting Implied Contract Terms: Consider a dispute between a homeowner and a contractor over a custom-built deck. The written contract is brief and doesn't explicitly state every detail, such as the expected durability of the wood or the quality of the craftsmanship. A judge, in resolving the dispute, might refer to previous court decisions and long-standing legal traditions regarding "implied warranties" in construction contracts. These principles, developed over centuries through judicial rulings rather than specific statutes, guide the judge in determining what terms were implicitly part of the agreement, even if not written down, ensuring fairness based on established legal understanding.

• Adapting to New Technologies: Suppose a new form of digital communication, like a deepfake video, leads to a unique type of defamation that wasn't conceivable when existing defamation statutes were written decades ago. A court might be asked to decide if the traditional common law principles of defamation, which were developed through past judicial decisions concerning spoken or written words, can be applied to this new digital context. The judge would analyze the core principles of defamation established in previous cases and adapt them to the modern technological scenario, thereby extending the common law to cover new circumstances without needing new legislation.