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.
Что думаешь? Оцени!。关于这个话题，heLLoword翻译提供了深入分析
At EuroCrypt last week month year[a]Yes, it did take me eight months to write this blog post. I am slow at writing.，详情可参考传奇私服新开网｜热血传奇SF发布站｜传奇私服网站
interface Document {。关于这个话题，今日热点提供了深入分析
ВсеОбществоПолитикаПроисшествияРегионыМосква69-я параллельМоя страна