Torts Textbooks:
I'll be teaching tort law for the first time this Fall, and would love to hear people's views on what textbooks they liked (and why) or disliked (and why), whether as teachers or students. Let me know, please, with as much detail as possible (both about your law school and the particular things you liked or disliked). Many thanks!
The reason I like the keeton casebook is that it really gets into the policy rationales behind different tort doctrines.
Full disclosure: I have co-authored a cpouple of papers with one of the editors, gregory keating.
As a side note, I welcome all VC readers to check out my friends and my law student blog "Blackbook Legal." We've had a similar thread recently about the use of supplements in the "core courses." We hope to do our part answering Prof. Kerr's observation about the death of law student blogging. Please visit; maybe you could even add us to a blog-roll or something...
My instructor focused on the analytical side of negligence - causation. The theories of individual torts are easy, how they link together is sort of hard, and the flourishes (inherently dangerous activities, assumption of risk, older stuff about common enemies) are very tricky to fit together without an orderly framework for thinking through a problem. Products liability on the other hand... it struck me as junk public policy rationales supporting junk science and junk logic in the interest of some kind of poorly elucidated social justice theory, at least in the cases that made the most interesting reading in the case book. The case law came across like the a guy standing there in court shouting, "Show me the money!" or maybe some second rate author's reliance on God or aliens to fill holes in the plot where he didn't have any better ideas. Full disclosure: I did some insurance defense work a number of years ago and this colors my perceptions.
Very well written. Some of the reviews I've read noted an economic slant, but at the time I didnt know enough to notice, and I havent gone back to see if the reviews are accurate.
If all case books were as well written as Epstein's casebook then 1st year reading would have been enjoyable.
My professor was one of the authors; in retrospect, I think it made for a better class (as he was very good about integrating all of the material from it into the course). The book itself was fine; logical organisation, explanatory material (and hypos) between the cases.
On the upside, F&G typically offer clear expositions of the black-letter law, a smattering of problems that you can work through in class, and a very good teacher's manual. On the downside, their text has far too many typos (some of them going to important matters such as R. (2) section numbers), neglects some important aspects of California law (forcing me to supplement the text), and was, in my case, poorly made (the binding fell apart).
- 3L at Berkeley Law
Oh, and Diamond for torts remains my favorite casebook in law school. Contrast it with Dukeminier for property, which was my least favorite.
I agree that D&K was a great property textbook, but I liked Yeazell's Civ Pro just fine. What didn't you like about it?
We supplemented it with "note cases" that Professor Krauss would write in the board to illustrate the points. As he was one of the best professors I've ever had, I would STRONGLY suggest emailing him for advice. The man is a master.
This system used my time much more efficiently than reading lots of unenlightening commentary and, as a bonus, I got better at research much faster than most others in my class.
I noticed no negative effect on my grades - I finished 1st year in the top 10 of my class, and graduated in the top 10%.
For pre-reading, think about assigning "Medieval Justice: Cases and Laws in France, England and Germany, 500-1500" by Hunt Janin. It will help incoming History Majors (and there are lots of them) understand the context of the modern legal system by explaining trespass on the case, etc.
For lecturing on actual cases, pick up your State's civil practice manual in the law library, and pick out some of the state's seminal cases on your own. You can have the students look up the cases on Westlaw or online. They can print them out and bring them to class. Why waste money on a casebook?
B &B has two main advantages and two main disadvantages.
Advantages: (1) It is short, and if you're teaching a 1 semester, 4 credit version, rather than a year-long 6 credit course, brevity helps; (2) it very effectively weaves in statutory material. While Torts may yet be the "common law-iest" of the canonical first year courses, even here statutes have made huge inroads.
Disadvantages: (1) It tends to spoon feed a lot of the material. At my law school, this is greatly appreciated by the students, and some of them need the help; at UCLA, perhaps not so much; (2) It is profoundly ahistorical in its presentation of the material.
Prosser's text is simply too long too be useful in a one semester course. It is nonetheless a great text. It could be better at incorporating statutory material. And it benefits from the Blues' superior production values relative to the Reds and Browns. I still assign the first chapter of this text for my opening class when teaching from B &B.
Enjoy Torts. I first taught it due to a manpower crunch on our faculty. It was decidedly not my first love as a law student, but I've come to greatly enjoy teaching it.
I really liked the Diamond book. It did a good job of explaining the law and the underlying theory of the shifts in Tort law. The Prosser book is incredibly theoretical and way too big. It was also incredibly expensive (of course I would have been annoyed at buying a book for $20 considering we already had one).
I know people who used the Farnsworth book and they really liked it. The biggest complaint I heard (which was mentioned earlier) was that it is riddled with typos.
Yeazell excelled at writing post-case questions that had little, if any, apparent relation to the case that had just apparent and to which the answer was not only not apparent but couldn't be found anywhere, sometimes including the teacher's manual. Then again, answering questions wouldn't have had very much in keeping with the rest of his book. I also thought it was poorly edited and boring. For the record, I had Epstein for Civ Pro II and he was as dismissive of the book as we students.
I think D&K is the only textbook I've opened since passing the bar, and that for only one issue.
But the text book used is one of the least important part of teaching law, especially torts. It's the professor that matters in the end. A good professor could teach the course well with a few dog-eared handouts. A bad professor couldn't teach it well with a gilded text book lovingly illustrated by monks who served as clerks to the court that decided Fletcher v. Rylands.
I was honored to have a most excellent professor, John Teeter, teach me torts. A more interesting, impassioned, and skillful educator I have never seen.
I will, however, add my voice to a couple of comments made earlier in the thread: first, the professor matters more than the book unless the book is truly atrocious; and second, your students will thank you if you teach them torts rather than economics theory, public choice theory, string theory, or really any theory. I enjoyed torts a great deal, at least in part because my professor made a point of finishing each case by teaching us the black letter law it laid down - as opposed to my criminal law class, which would have been better titled "theories of societal morality."
Given that my instructor could not teach, Joseph Glannon's examples and explanations provided the basis of my torts understanding.
My beef with it was the organization -- considering each element of negligence completely before moving on to the next. Thus, the chapter on "Duty" included all the special duty and no duty rules that have been devloped over the years. Thus, the rules for premises liability, a chapter unto themselves in most texts, are merely a (very) cursory piece of the "duty" chapter. Most texts first cover the four (I would say 5) elements for run of the mine negligence cases, then go back and discretely cover the "special cases".
While I understand the authors' rationale for their choice, I didn't care for it in practice.
Case names are misspelled; the holdings are edited out; questions are foolish. Probably best to stay away from anything associated with the name Zwier.
Prof. Seidelson at GWU night school used Prosser, but that wasn't really the point. He gave us, literally, thousands of case notes, after which we diligently reviewed and read the cases (in study groups, since there were too many to handle solo), only to find that he had accurately and completely summarized them in class. So, in addition to highlighting my text in multiple colors, we had all this outside reading. As a student I was miffed that he had wasted our time, but as a lawyer, I now realize that he had trained us very well in a short period of time in case analysis and interpretation. Essential skills for a working lawyer. HOWEVER, the fact that this was the point of the method could have been repetitively stressed, even in a 1L class. In my case, it finally sank in during a later class when a local prosecutor visited and, as described by the professor, "whipped cases out of his quiver like arrows." Yup, exactly what is done.
So the question is whether you intend to teach the law of torts, or the practice of torts law, or some combination?
Also, I love the Tort Stories and recommend it heartily.
Didn't really like the book at all. I've never liked the Aspen Publishers (red) books, the pages are far too thin (highlight bleeds right through like crazy) and the text formatting isn't very good and is difficult to read.
Coase, RH, "The Problem of Social Cost", 3 Journal of Law and Economics 1 (1960).
The Nobel committee members aren't lawyers, of course, so their opinion hardly counts. Worse, the author admitted that it wasn't rigorous, indeed, that it was a bit sketchy.
But it seems to have generated some subsequent commentary. Some judge named Posner seems to think it might have some relevance.
Seriously, anyone who teaches torts without assigning that article should be drummed out of the profession. It's alarmingly accessible, even to law students.
It nicely explains the purpose of each case for its place in its section of the textbook. Understanding the purpose of each case, made the overall material easier to understand.
Personally I find the "hiding of the ball" done by some texts pointless, counterproductive, and somewhat evidence of laziness on the part of the editor. There are better ways to get people to think "legally" than simply obscuring what a case is meant to illustrate.
It nicely explains the purpose of each case for its place in its section of the textbook. Understanding the purpose of each case, made the overall material easier to understand.
Personally I find the "hiding of the ball" done by some texts pointless, counterproductive, and somewhat evidence of laziness on the part of the editor. There are better ways to get people to think "legally" than simply obscuring what a case is meant to illustrate.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.