 Imagine you are walking down the street to do some shopping, and suddenly a roof tile lands on your head. What is that supposed to mean, you ask yourself, and you go inside the department store from which the tile fell off to complain. The owner of the department store shows little interest in your misfortune, and says that he cannot explain how it happened. Of course, you also have no idea how exactly the tile landed on your head. But because you have a concussion, you go to a lawyer and sue in court. What happens next depends on whether the incident happened in a country that practices civil law or one that applies common law. Do you know which of the two is practiced where you live? Let's say the whole thing happens to you in Germany, which belongs to the continental European legal system where civil law applies. How does the judge evaluate your case? She is looking for a legal provision that fits your case. In the German Civil Code, Article 838, she will find the general rule that a building user has to maintain the structure and is responsible for the damage caused if parts of the building break off. The judge then examines the law. She checks if the defendant really is the user of the building, if he has to maintain the building by law, and whether he had negligently failed to do so. If all those legal elements are fulfilled, the department store operator is liable and you, as the plaintiff who instituted the legal proceedings, will receive compensation for the suffering caused by the event. If you had taken your walk in the United States, which belongs to the Anglo-American legal system, the common law, the judge would proceed differently. In the U.S., the judge would instead look for a comparable case, such as the English case of Bern v. Bodle from 1863, in which pretty much the same thing had happened to a poor passerby. Only, it had not been a loose brick, but rather a barrel stored in the building. In this case, the court held the department store owner responsible, even though the plaintiff could not prove negligence on the part of the defendant. So what are the differences between civil law and common law? The legal systems are differentiated primarily on the basis of their way of thinking. The civil law system is characterized by thinking on the basis of general and abstract legal provisions, most of which are laid down in codifications, such as the civil code in Germany. The judge works deductively by applying the general rule to the concrete case, a technique known as subsumption. The common law system is characterized by similar cases that happened in the past. The so-called doctrine of stare decisis, Latin for to stand by things decided, binds judges to precedents, cases that happened in the past. That is why the judge works on a case-by-case basis and compares them with one another. If the judge wants to deviate from a previous decision, the so-called distinguishing is used to determine the differences between the case at hand and the precedent. In summary, to determine wrongdoing and compensation, the civil law system relies on the code of law interpreted by judges, while the common law system relies on similar cases from the past. What are your thoughts? Which legal system is better? Share your thoughts in the comments below and tell us what type of law is practiced in the country you are from. If you like how we explain complicated ideas in simple cartoon animation, you can support us. Visit patreon.com slash sprouts. Take a look, learn how it works, and what's in it for you. We hope to see you there. If you are an educator, check our website, sproutschools.com, there you can find this and other video lessons plus additional resources and classroom activities.