A lawyer argues: 'In Smith v. Jones (1995), the court ruled that an employer was liable for a toxic workplace. My client's situation is analogous -- the same principle should apply.' The opposing lawyer responds that the precedent involved physical toxins while this case involves psychological harassment. How should a judge evaluate this?
The cases share the word 'toxic,' so the precedent applies directly
The judge should assess whether the legally relevant principle (employer duty of care for employee wellbeing) transfers across the physical-psychological distinction, or whether that distinction creates a material difference in liability standards
Precedent can never be applied to new situations
The newer case automatically overrides the older one