Law
Absurdity Doctrine in Statutory Interpretation
Quick fact
The absurdity doctrine is rarely applied; courts only invoke it when a literal reading would produce a result that is manifestly contrary to common sense and the legislature's obvious intent, such as a law punishing 'any person who shall falsely steal a horse' potentially applying to a person who merely pretends to steal a horse.
Why this is interesting
Imagine a law that says 'no vehicles in the park.' If someone drives an ambulance to save a life, is that a violation? The absurdity doctrine explains why judges might say no.