Let’s say I have a bunch of ephemeral
«Все это очень подозрительно». В Венгрии вскрыли гигантские денежные потоки для Украины, которые шли непонятно куда08:21
，这一点在wps中也有详细论述
Что думаешь? Оцени!
^ This is one interpretation of the view laid out in Zipursky, Rights, Wrongs, and Recourse, supra note 17, at 23 (“When A shoots at B, he displays an attitude of extreme subjective indifference toward the physical and emotional well-being of all those, including C, who might be hit by his bullet.”). The Second Restatement might be understood as positing such a duty when it lays down that “[a]n actor is subject to liability to another for battery if (a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and (b) a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 13 (A.L.I. 1965) (emphasis added). The more natural and plausible interpretation of this provision, however, is that it constitutes a pigeonhole liability rule under which the transferred intent victim can claim in battery although no duty to him (except a bare duty of non-injury) has been breached.