Что думаешь? Оцени!
FT Digital Edition: our digitised print edition
，详情可参考91吃瓜
Civil law jurisdictions, like common law jurisdictions, generally recognize that wrongfully causing loss (without infringing any sort of right) does not ground compensatory liability.94 But the common law, unlike the civil law, insists (at least on its face) that a defendant must not only infringe the plaintiff’s right against injury; he must also breach a duty owed to her, that is, treat her wrongfully by violating a norm of conduct regarding how she should be treated.95 Thus, on its face, the common law denies recovery to an unforeseeable plaintiff whose property is foreseeably destroyed by the defendant’s negligence or a foreseeable plaintiff who is not treated carelessly by the negligent defendant.96 A civil law clause such as BGB section 823(1), by contrast, elegantly explains the propriety of recovery in such a case,97 and in many other cases to be discussed below.。关于这个话题，传奇私服新开网｜热血传奇SF发布站｜传奇私服网站提供了深入分析
Taking a step back, I was asking myself: Is it really frozen?. The
^ Derosier v. New Eng. Tel. & Tel. Co., 130 A. 145, 152–53 (N.H. 1925) (emphasis added); see also Bauer, supra note 147, at 589; Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 33 cmt. e (A.L.I. 2010) (“[If] an intentional tort is not highly culpable . . . the scope of liability should be scaled to the more modest culpability.”).