法理学原理：法律现实主义.pptx

法律现实主义Here comes your footer ? Page 主要内容 1、概念辨析2、案例研讨3、法律现实主义的前世4、法律现实主义的今生5、法律现实主义的启发目录? Page 一、概念辨析Here comes your footer ? Page 一、概念辨析法律形式主义（legal formalism）法律实用主义（legal pragmatism）法律现实主义（legal realism）法律工具主义（legal instrumentalism）分析主义法学（analytical jurisprudence）法律实证主义（legal positivism）法律怀疑主义（legal skepticism）功利主义（utilitarianism）概念分析? Page 法律形式主义? Page （一）法律实用主义 二十世纪初期； 基本主张： （1）最大限度地满足需求和利益 （2）关注行动后果 （3）注重经验分析 （4）强调具体情况或语境论（二）法律现实主义二十世纪三十年代；对形式主义革命的再革命；现实主义走的更远、更彻底；弗兰克、卢埃林；基本主张：（1）规则怀疑论（2）事实怀疑论法律形式主义? Page （二）法律工具主义十九世纪、二十年代；Law as an Means to the End；与实用主义、现实主义有很大重合；从语义上看，消极色彩浓厚。法律形式主义? Page 分析主义法学（analytical jurisprudence）法律实证主义（legal positivism）法律怀疑主义（legal skepticism）功利主义（utilitarianism）法律形式主义? Page 二、案例研讨Here comes your footer ? Page LEROY FIBRE COMPANY, v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY.案例研讨? Page Plaintiff stored about 700 tons of straw in 230 stacks on his land. The stacks were lined up in two rows. Defendant’s train was 70 from the first row and 85 feet from the second row. One day a high wind carried sparks from Defendant’s train to the stack located 85 feet away. A fire resulted and consumed all the stacks. Plaintiff sued Defendant for negligence. The jury found that Defendant negligently operated its train by allowing it to emit large quantities of sparks and live cinders. They also found that Defendant’s negligence was the cause of Plaintiff’s harm. However, the jury found Plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence by placing the exposed stacks within 100 feet of a railroad track. Plaintiff appealed. Plaintiff argued that there was no issue of contributory negligence to give to the jury at all.Here comes your footer ? Page * Plaintiff’s use of the land was a proper use. It did not interfere with nor embarrass the rightful operation of the railroad.* Plaintiff is not restricted to make a lawful use of his property. Plaintiff’s conduct does not amount to contributory negligence because it would subject Plaintiff to the