Legal Definitions - rule of inconvenience

The rule of inconvenience is a principle that guides courts when they are interpreting the meaning of a law (a statute). It suggests that a court should generally avoid interpreting a law in a way that would lead to significant negative consequences, such as:

• Jeopardizing an important public interest (like public safety, health, or essential services).
• Creating a serious hardship for individuals, businesses, or communities.

This principle applies unless the plain language of the law makes such an interpretation absolutely unavoidable. In essence, if there are two reasonable ways to understand a law, a court should choose the interpretation that prevents severe problems or undue burdens, rather than the one that causes them.

Here are some examples to illustrate the rule of inconvenience:

• Example 1: Public Health and Safety

  Imagine a new state law is passed requiring "all public facilities to undergo a complete structural renovation every five years." A small, rural hospital, which is the only medical facility for hundreds of miles, is due for renovation. A literal interpretation of the law would force the hospital to close entirely for several months during the renovation, leaving the community without emergency medical care, critical surgeries, and basic health services. This would clearly jeopardize an important public interest in health and safety.

  Applying the rule of inconvenience, a court might interpret "complete structural renovation" to allow for phased renovations, temporary modular facilities, or other solutions that ensure the hospital can remain operational and continue serving the public without interruption, unless the law explicitly states that full closure is mandatory and provides no alternatives.

• Example 2: Economic Hardship for Businesses

  Consider a new city ordinance stating that "all commercial waste must be disposed of at the city's central landfill, and collection services will only operate between 10 PM and 2 AM." The intent might be to reduce daytime traffic congestion. However, for many small restaurants, cafes, and grocery stores, receiving waste collection only in the middle of the night would require them to keep staff on duty overnight solely for waste disposal, or to store large amounts of perishable waste for extended periods, leading to health code violations and pest issues. This creates a serious financial and operational hardship for numerous local businesses.

  A court, guided by the rule of inconvenience, might interpret "commercial waste" to allow for exceptions for businesses dealing with perishable goods, or interpret "collection services" to include flexible scheduling options for certain business types, if the ordinance's language permits such flexibility. This would prevent widespread economic distress and potential business closures.

• Example 3: Access to Essential Services

  Suppose a state law mandates that "all government services must be accessed in person at the county seat." For residents of remote areas within a large county, traveling to the county seat could involve a multi-hour drive, significant fuel costs, and lost wages, making it extremely difficult to access essential services like vehicle registration, social security benefits, or permits. This creates a serious hardship for a segment of the population and potentially limits their access to fundamental government functions.

  Under the rule of inconvenience, a court might interpret "accessed in person" to include modern alternatives like online portals, mail-in options, or satellite offices, especially if the law was written before such technologies were prevalent and if the primary goal is to ensure service delivery, not restrict access. This interpretation would avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on citizens seeking essential services.