Онколог назвал возможную причину поздней диагностики рака у Лерчек14:51
Get Quanta Magazine delivered to your inbox
，推荐阅读有道翻译获取更多信息
At this point, Cardozo’s followers might elect a more drastic maneuver. The idea here would be that, although in transferred intent cases the plaintiff is unforeseeable to the defendant, the defendant nevertheless breaches a legal duty owed to him: a legal duty not to injure him (unforeseeable though he may be) by acting on an intention to injure someone else.141 Once the requirement of victim foreseeability is jettisoned as to duties in battery, however, it becomes obscure why it should be retained as to duties in negligence. If (as the Palsgraf perspective’s defenders say) “the idea of owing [a] duty to someone who is unforeseeable” is incoherent — because a duty must be able to “guide [the defendant’s] conduct”142 (and a person deliberating about her conduct cannot take account of an unforeseeable victim) or else because the duty’s violation must express an “[a]ffront to [the plaintiff’s] personality”143 (and an unforeseeable victim’s personality cannot be affronted) — then such a duty is no less incoherent in battery than in negligence. If, by contrast, it is coherent and plausible to recognize a duty to unforeseeable victims in battery, there should be no obstacle to recognizing a duty to unforeseeable victims in negligence as well. But to recognize such a duty in negligence would, of course, vitiate the reasoning in Palsgraf entirely.
Дмитриев рассказал о встрече с представителями США08:34