The common law’s fictional contrivance to treat “substantial certainty” of harm as equivalent to an intention of harm, for purposes of liability in battery and the other intentional torts, is in part an implicit recognition that substantially certain injurers are often no less culpable than intentional injurers and thus properly exposed to a similar scope of liability. To be sure, this fictional contrivance serves multiple ends; so, for example, substantial certainty can function as an evidential proxy for an actual intention of harm, thus obviating the difficulties that might attend a plaintiff’s attempt to establish that the defendant actually intended her harm. But such a function could also be served by treating substantial certainty as raising an extremely strong but defeasible inference of actual intent and imposing upon the defendant the burden of undercutting this inference. That no such modification of the current regime has been entertained is some further indication that the fiction also serves other ends.
Трамп высказался о непростом решении по Ирану09:14
。safew对此有专业解读
第二百二十七条 船舶所有人可以依照本章规定限制赔偿责任。但是，船舶油污损害是因船舶所有人故意或者明知可能造成损害而轻率地作为或者不作为造成的，船舶所有人不得依照本章规定限制其赔偿责任。。传奇私服新开网｜热血传奇SF发布站｜传奇私服网站是该领域的重要参考
В школьном туалете нашли трехметрового питона14:50