In little more than 900 pages, you will find key cases, lucid note material, and a highly effective pedagogy in this skillfully structured casebook for Torts.
Authored by the esteemed educators and co-reporters for the Restatement (Third) of Torts, the Second Edition
Carefully selected, eminently teachable cases;
Clear and concise notes;
Skillful case editing that preserves the language of the law without overwhelming students in details;
Provocative questions that highlight legal issues raised in the case;
Authors' Dialogues, a uniquely innovative pedagogical feature, engaging exchanges between the authors that raise salient topical points and model persuasive legal reasoning;
Numerous short hypotheticals throughout the book.
With new hypotheticals in the Second Edition, Cases and Materials has been updated to reflect new developments in the law,
A full integration of the Restatement (Third) of Torts;
Read for Torts. It's a pretty traditional casebook. I remember not loving that there would be a bunch of hypos that would have zero explanation at all (I get that some concepts don't have a discrete answer, but it would have been nice if they offered an explanation of that).
Bea is driving a manual transmission car (for which she has no license, in violation of a state statute) when she loses control and crashes into a fire hydrant. The broken hydrant spews water all over the street, causing Charlie to lose control of his car and crash into an electricity pole. The pole knocks out electricity on the entire block. Dee is walking in a stairwell in an apartment building on that block when the lights go out, causing her to fall down the stairs and break her leg.
Discuss the rights and liabilities of all the parties.
This book tells you frankly what the law of torts is. But it is designed to work with Prof Twerski's classes. In the classes, Prof Twerski will tell you why the cases are there in the book and his criticisms of them. With his comments in the classes, you can see a system of torts law. He has a lot of criticisms about the cases, but his way of saying it is "I don't understand why the court did this when it could do that" rather than "This court is wrong and should do that," so I've learned a very polite way of criticizing people :)