Epstein consistently fails to distinguish between the law as applied by real courts and the law as Epstein would like it to be. On the rare occassion that he does acknowledge that his views are not law, he refuses to present the arguments in favor of the majority rule fairly or objectively, often characterizing a court's allegedly faulty application of a rule as a mistake, or worse. The vast majority of Epstein's views in any area of law, including the law of torts, are way out on the fringe of American jurisprudence, and he does the reader a disservice by pretending otherwise.

Richard Epstein's Cases and Materials on Torts is easily the best casebook I used in law school. The cases are well edited, and the prose clear and tight. The notes after and before the cases are clear and thought provoking, but more importantly, let the reader know why the cases have been included in the book. While the book is heavily slanted toward a law and economics approach to tort law, I recommend this book for any professor who wants a systematic and clear approach to tort law that students will appreciate