Perfect For: Digital marketers and businesses looking to scale their ad production efficiently.
Thanks for signing up!
。关于这个话题，包养平台-包养APP提供了深入分析
Золото подешевело из-за страха перед ростом цен14:45，更多细节参见谷歌
The case is recent, but the general phenomenon is not a novel one. Take the rule announced in Wagner v. International Railway Co.,321 another famous Cardozo case decided seven years before Palsgraf. In Wagner, Cardozo held that a defendant who had negligently endangered another person could be liable to that person’s companion, for injuries sustained in the course of attempting a rescue.322 It might seem that such injured rescuer must sue as the “vicarious beneficiary”323 (in Palsgraf’s phrase) of the negligent defendant’s breach of his duty of care to the primary victim endangered. Not so, Cardozo maintained: “The wrong that imperils life is a wrong to the imperiled victim; it is a wrong also to his rescuer. . . . The risk of rescue, if only it be not wanton, is born of the occasion.”324 The most natural reconstruction of Cardozo’s thought, as the Palsgraf perspective’s defenders have recognized, sounds in foreseeability: “[T]he prospect of a rescuer who might be injured [is] within the scope of the hazards the negligent defendant [can] be expected to foresee.”325 Because the rescuer is a foreseeable victim of the defendant’s negligent action, the defendant breaches a duty of care owed to him, not just a duty of care owed to the directly imperiled party. “Danger invites rescue,” as Cardozo memorably put it.326。关于这个话题，超级权重提供了深入分析