国著名的哈佛、耶鲁等大学的法学院普遍采用这套教材，在法学专家和学生中拥有极高的声誉。本丛书中所选的均为重要案例，其中很多案例有重要历史意义。书中摘录案例的重点部分，包括事实、法官的推理、作出判决的依据。不仅使读者快速掌握案例要点，而且省去繁琐的检索和查阅原案例的时间。书中还收录有成文法和相关资料，对国内不具备查阅美国原始资料条件的读者来说，本套书更是不可或缺的学习参考书。这套丛书充分体现了美国法学教育以案例教学为主的特点，以法院判例作为教学内容，采用苏格拉底式的问答方法，在课堂上学生充分参与讨论。这就要求学生不仅要了解专题法律知识，而且要理解法律判决书。本套丛书结合案例设计的大量思考题，对提高学生理解概念、提高分析和解决问题的能力，非常有益。本书及时补充出版最新的案例和法规汇编，保持四年修订一次的惯例，增补最新案例和最新学术研究成果，保证教材与时代发展同步。本丛书还有配套的教师手册，方便教师备课。案例举要(Casenote Legal Briefs)美国最近三十年最畅销的法律教材的配套辅导读物。其中的每本书都是相关教材中的案例摘要和精辟讲解。该丛书内容简明扼要，条理清晰，结构科学，便于学生课前预习、课堂讨论、课后复习和准备考试。除此之外，中信出版社还将推出教程系列、法律文书写作系列等美国法学教材的影印本。美国法律以判例法为其主要的法律渊源，法律规范机动灵活，随着时代的变迁而对不合时宜的法律规则进行及时改进，以反映最新的时代特征；美国的法律教育同样贯穿了美国法律灵活的特性，采用大量的案例教学，启发学生的逻辑思维，提高其应用法律原则的能力。从历史上看，我国的法律体系更多地受大陆法系的影响，法律渊源主要是成文法。在法学教育上，与国外法学教科书注重现实问题研究，注重培养学生分析和解决问题的能力相比，我国基本上采用理论教学为主，而用案例教学来解析法理则显得薄弱，在培养学生的创新精神和实践能力方面也做得不够。将美国的主流法学教材和权威的法律专业用书影印出版，就是试图让法律工作者通过原汁原味的外版书的学习，开阔眼界，取长补短，提升自己的专业水平，培养学生操作法律实际动手能力，特别是使我们的学生培养起对法律的精细化、具体化和操作化能力。需要指出的是，影印出版美国的法学教材，并不是要不加取舍地全盘接收，我们只是希望呈现给读者一部完整的著作，让读者去评判。“取其精华去其糟粕”是我们民族对待外来文化的原则，我们相信读者的分辨能力。是为序。FORMAT FOR THE CASENOTE LEGAL BRIEFPALSGRAF v.LONG ISLAND R.R.CON.Y.C.App.,248N.Y.339,162N.E,99(1928)actlon (e.g.,breach of contract,negligence,battery),the typedages for personal injury.FACT SUMMARY:Helen Paisgraf (P)was injured on R.R.'(D)train platiorm whenR.R.'s(D)guard helped a passenger aboard a moving train,causing his packagelaw that the case illustrates.It y be used for Instant recall ofCONCISE RULE OF LAW:The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty tothe court's holding and for classroom discusslon or homebe obeyed.revlew.FACTS:Helen Palsgraf (P)purchased a ticket to Rockaway Beach from R.R.(D)andwas waiting on the train platform.As she waited,two men ran to catch a train that waspulling out from the platform.The first n jumped aboard,but the second n,whoFACTS:This section contains all relevant facts of the case,includingappeared as if he might fall,was helped aboard by the guard on the train who had keptthe contentions of the parties and the lower court holdings.It is wnttenthe door open so they could jump aboard.A guard on the platform also helped byin a logical order to give the student a clear understanding of thepushing him onto the train.The n was carrying a package wrapped in newspaper.Incase.The plaintiff and defendant are identified by their proper namesthe process,the n dropped his package,which fell on the tracks.The packagethroughout and are always labeled with a (P)or(D).contained fireworks and exploded.The shock of the explosion was apparently of greatenough strength to tip over some scales at the other end of the platform,which fell onPalsgraf(P)and injured her.Ajury awarded her dages,and R.R.(D)appealed.ISSUE:The issue is a concise question that brings out the essenceof the opinion as it relates to the section of the casebook in which theISSUE:Does the risk reasonably to be perceived define the duty to be obeyed?case appears.Both substantive and procedural issues are includedHOLDING AND DECISION:(Cardozo,C.J.)Yes.The risk reasonably to be perceivedif relevant to the decision.defines the duty to be obeyed.If there is no foreseeable hazard to the injured party asHOLDING AND DECISION:This section offers a clear and in-depthto be a wrong as to another.If the wrong was not willful,the plaintiff must show that thediscussion of the rule of the case and the court's rationale.It iswritten in easy-to-understand language and answers the issue(s)protection.Negligence in the abstract is not enough upon which to base liability.presented by applying the law to the facts of the case.When relevant,Negligence is a relative concept,evolving out of the common law doctrine of trespasson the case.To establish liability,the defendant must owe a legal duty of reasonableit includes a thorough discussion of the exceptions to the case ascare to the injured party.Acause of action in tort will lie where harm.though unintendedlisted by the court,any jor cites to other cases on point,and thecould have been averted or avoided by observance of such a duty.The scope of thenames of the judges who wrote the decisions.duty is limited by the range of danger that a reasonable person could foresee.In thiscase,there was nothing to suggest from the appearance of the parcel or otherwise thatthe parcel contained fireworks.The guard couid not reasonably have had any wamingof a threat to Palsgraf (P),and R.R.(D)therefore cannot be held liable.Judgment isreversed in favor of R.R.(D).DISSENT:(Andrews,J.)The concept that there is no negligence unless R.R.(D)oweriefed whenever they are included by the casebook editor.a legal duty to take care as to Palsgraf (P)herself is too narrow.Everyone owes to thesafety of others.If the guard's action was negligent as to those nearby,it was alsoto recover,R.R.'s (D)negligence must have been the proxite cause of her injury,aquestion of fact for the jury.EDITOR'S ANALYSIS:This last paragraph gives the student a broadEDITOR'S ANALYSIS:The jority defined the limit of the defendant's liability in termsunderstanding of where the case "fits in"with other cases in theof the danger that a reasonable person in detendant's situation would have percelved.section of the book and with the entire course.It is a hombook-styleThe dissent argued that the limitation should not be placed on liability,but rather ondiscussion indicating whether the case is a jority or minoritydages.Judge Andrews suggested that only injuries that would not have happenedopinion and comparing the principal case with other cases in thebut for R.R.'s (D)negligence should be compensable.Both the jority and dissentrecognized the policy-driven need to limit liability for negligent acts,seeking.in thecasebook.It y also provide ysis from restatements,uniformwords of Judge Andrews,to define a framework 'that will be practical and in keepingcodes,and law review articles.The editor's ysis will prove to bewith the general understanding of nkind."The Restatement (Second)of Torts hasinvaluable to classroom discussion.accepted Judge Cardozo's view.QUICKNOTES:Conveniently defines legal terms found in the caseand sumrizes the nature of any statutes,codes,or rules referredQUICKNOTESFORESEEABILITY The reasonable anticipation that dage is a likely result fromcertain acts or omissions.NEGLIGENCE-Failure to exercise that degree of care which a person of ordinaryprudence would exercise under similar circumstances.PROXIMATE CAUSE-Something which in natural and continuous sequence,unbroken by any new intervening cause,produces an event,and without which theinjury would not have occurred.