Cases and Materials on Tort Law and Alternatives

by Marc A. Franklin, Robert L. Rabin

Franklin, Marc A., Rabin, Robert L.

Genres: Law, Textbooks, School, Read For School

1202 pages, Hardcover

First published April 1, 1992

Reviews

[Cory Brown]

I’m counting this

[Rachel Bear]

sorry but i’m counting this

[Katherine · Rating 1 out of 5]

excruciating, 0/10 recommend reading the notes cases

[Alejandro · Rating 5 out of 5]

enthralling quick-read.

[Karolyn · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hello tortfeasors. There’s only one thing you need to know… DBCD… Deliver By Christmas Day… Duty, Breach, Causation, Damages. It’s hard to forget the case of Hammontree v. Jenner (literally the first one). And of course Palsgraf is a classic torts case. My very first cold call of law school was Trimarco v. Klein!!

[Maggie Sheerin]

Too many squibs and not enough train station fireworks.

[Jack Neary · Rating 3 out of 5]

The plot was difficult to follow and there were too many characters. I loved the part with the fireworks at the train station.

[Lorenzo · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is duty and then there's DUTY. This book breaks down that subtle distinction in a way that's both clear and mind-bogglingly contextualized. The answer, according to this book, is that things must be placed in a matrix of reasonable expectations, legislative enforcement schema, the interest of injured individuals in obtaining compensation, and our society's goal of creating a predictable tort system. Add in a dash of causal uncertainty, gloss over the problem of proximate cause (for which heuristics provide a great soundbite and fail to adequately apply law to facts), and you've got yourself a system of monetary remuneration.

Rabin is an excellent professor and adds a lot to the reading (it looks like GoodReads thinks this book is only written by Franklin, but he's actually a coauthor along with Rabin and Green). Although he doesn't explicitly say it, you can rest assured that if you mess up your duty to exercise reasonable care because you were confused by the competing tensions currently at play in tort law, at least you won't be barred from recovery by classic contributory negligence doctrine.

[Danny · Rating 5 out of 5]

1. Hammontree v. Jenner, California (1971)
2. Christensen v. Swenson, Utah (1994)
3. Roessler v. Novak, Florida (2003)
4. Brown v. Kendall, Massachusetts (1850)
5. Adams v. Bullock, New York (1919)
6. United States v. Carroll Towing Co., 2d Cir. (1947)
7. Bethel v. New York City Transit Authority, New York (1998)
8. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Goodman, 275 US. 66 (1927)
9. Pokora v. Washington Railway Co., 282 US 98 (1934)
10. Andrews v. United Airlines, Inc., 9th Cir. (1994)
11. Trimarco v. Klein, New York (1982)
12. Martin v. Herzog, New York (1920)
13. Tedla v. Ellman, New York (1939)
14. Negri v. Stop & Shop, Inc., New York (1985)
15. Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, New York (1986)
16. Byrne v. Boadle, England (1863)
17. McDougald v. Perry, Florida (1998)
18. Ybarra v. Spangard, California (1944)
19. Sheeley v. Memorial Hospital, Rhode Island (1998)
20. Matthies v. Mastromonaco, New Jersey (1999)
21. Harper v. Herman, Minnesota (1993)
22. Farwell v. Keaton, Michigan (1976)
23. Randi W. v. Muroc J.U.S.D., California (1997)
24. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, California (1976)
25. Strauss v. Belle Realty Co., New York (1985)
26. Reynolds v. Hicks, Washington (1998)
27. Vince v. Wilson, Vermont (1989)
28. Carter v. Kinney, Missouri (1995)
29. Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Louisiana (1999)
30. Behrendt v. Gulf Underwriters Insurance Co., Wisconsin (2009)
31. Broadbent v. Broadbent, Arizona (1995)
32. Riss v. City of New York, New York (1968)
33. Cope v. Scott, D.C. Cir. (1995)
34. Falzone v. Bush, New Jersey (1965)
35. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co. v. Buckley, 521 US 424 (1997)
36. Gammon v. Osteopathic Hospital of Maine, Inc., Maine (1987)
37. Johnson v. Jamaica Hospital, New York (1984)
38. Portee v. Jaffee, New Jersey (1980)
39. Nycal Corporation v. KPMG Peat Marwick LLP, Massachusetts (1998)
40. Emerson v. Magendantz, Rhode Island (1997)
41. Stubbs v. City of Rochester, New York (1919)
42. Zuchowicz v. United States, 2d Cir. (1998)
43. Matsuyama v. Birnbaum, Massachusetts (2008)
44. Summers v. Tice, California (1948)
45. Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co., New York (1989)
46. Benn v. Thomas, Iowa (1994)
47. In re an Arbitration Between Polemis & Another & Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd., England (1921)
48. Overseas Tankship Ltd. v. Mort’s Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd., England (1961)
49. Torres v. El Paso Electric Co., New Mexico (1999)
50. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., New York (1928)
51. Davies v. Mann, England (1842)
52. Fritts v. McKinne, Oklahoma (1996)
53. Hanks v. Powder Ridge Restaurant Corp., Connecticut (2005)
54. Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co., New York (1929)
55. Davenport v. Cotton Hope Plantation Horizontal Property Regime, South Carolina (1998)
56. Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 US 312 (2008)
57. Fletcher v. Rylands, England (1866)
58. Rylands v. Fletcher, England (1868)
59. Sullivan v. Dunham, New York (1900)
60. Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 7th Cir. (1990)
61. MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., New York (1916)
62. Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno, California (1944)    
63. Soule v. General Motors Corporation, California (1994)
64. Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., Colorado (1987)
65. Hood v. Ryobi America Corp., 4th Cir. (1999)
66. Centocor v. Hamilton, Texas (2012)
67. General Motors Corporation v. Sanchez, Texas (1999)
68. Jones v. Ryobi, Ltd., 8th Cir. (1994)
69.  Liriano v. Hobart Corp., New York (1998)
70. Royer v. Catholic Medical Center, New Hampshire (1999)
71. East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc., 476 US 858 (1986)
72. Garratt v. Dailey, Washington (1955)
73. Picard v. Barry Pontiac-Buick, Inc., Rhode Island (1995)
74. Wishnatsky v. Huey, North Dakota (1998)
75. Lopez v. Winchell’s Donut House, Illinois (1984)
76. Womack v. Eldridge, Virginia (1974)
77. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 US 46 (1988)
78. Martin v. Reynolds Metals Co., Oregon (1959)
79. Thyroff v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., New York (2007)
80. Hart v. Geysel, Washington (1930)
81. Courvoisier v. Raymond, Colorado (1896)
82. Katko v. Briney, Iowa (1971)
83. Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co., Minnesota (1910)

[Izzy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good afternoon tortfeasors...

I generally enjoyed torts as a class, but the notes section of this book is HEAVY. Why you would make the notes section twice as long as the actual case is beyond me.

Some notes. I really want to meet Maxine Hammontree. Getting a DBCD tattoo after this. I hope an attorney comes up to me in the gym and talks about the Palsgraf case (I get a job offered on the spot). I want to buy a Sports Seat. Do we even care about intentional torts? (Hint: not me). Negligence per se and respondeat superior forever (I love speaking Latin).

Here is to hoping my first exam ever in law school goes well!! #Clogger4Life

[A · Rating 1 out of 5]

Made little to no sense

[claud · Rating 3 out of 5]

had to read for my actual class

[Claire · Rating 1 out of 5]

Terrible. Do not recommend.

[Meghan McGlone · Rating 4 out of 5]

woo hoo, torts! whats your favorite tort?

[Sharon Getsis · Rating 5 out of 5]

School - I looove this textbook

[Kaitlyn Dehais · Rating 3 out of 5]

more interesting than the others! so boring though 🩷

[Victor Dumitru]

lol

[SK]

Humbling to realize your life is only worth so much in compensatory damages.

[Heshan Cui · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enjoyed studying Torts law lol

[Kate Dickman · Rating 1 out of 5]

actually fuck this book and fuck all of torts law

[Annie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thoroughly enjoyed this, but only because I have the jokesiest prof who made every case meme-able.

[Kienie · Rating 3 out of 5]

It wants a lot of engagement from its reader. It won't stop asking questions, expecting us to connect previously read cases and consider hypothetical situations. Which is nice, except I only have so many hours to read you, book!

Not a bad book, on the whole, but hard to parse through, especially since we barely discussed any of the notes in class. Would've been helpful if the professor told us what to focus on before we had to fight through a 40-page assignment. But that's not the book's fault.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed the course associated with this casebook, and the book itself was a contributing factor. The book seemed to work, the cases and footnotes described the debate within the law over key issues and discussed why some jurisdiction chose one method over another. This allowed for more fluid debate amongst my colleagues. I really makes me want to continue on with Torts II.

[mz · Rating 3 out of 5]

So at first I hated the loooooong "Notes and Questions" sections after each case, but as I understood the doctrines more deeply, I began to appreciate them... I only wish that I had had the time to actually read all of them!

[Nathaniel Spinney · Rating 3 out of 5]

Welp, I think I understand the law. Or at least understand how to look it up! I definitely read this book at least twice.