The implicit suggestion is that the logic of the italicized exception does not vitiate the logic of Cardozo’s general claim. But that suggestion plainly calls out for explanation and defense. If willfully harmful actions may render a tortfeasor liable for harm to an unforeseeable victim, one wishes to know, why not negligently harmful actions? If a tortfeasor cannot owe a duty against careless injury to an unforeseeable victim, how can a tortfeasor owe a duty against intentional injury to an unforeseeable victim? Absent some plausible explanation of this asymmetry, consistency would appear to require dispensing with the doctrine of transferred intent or renouncing the relationship between foreseeability and negligence liability that Cardozo posited. And nothing in the passage attempts to supply the needed explanation.
Get editor selected deals texted right to your phone!。免实名服务器对此有专业解读
git clone https://github.com/jonmagic/secure-env-demo.git。手游是该领域的重要参考
The storytelling hack for 10x buzz on Reddit
