This Article argues that the Palsgraf perspective is mistaken and proposes a different moral picture of tort law’s normative substance and doctrinal structure. Tort law may be centrally concerned with “common morality,” rather than promoting the welfare of society at large.26 But torts are not relational legal wrongs, and their purpose is not to recognize or redress relational moral wrongs. Torts are remedial pigeonholes: legal liability rules that identify the complex conditions under which a defendant is morally liable to provide a plaintiff with compensation or other forms of remedial relief. Rather than recognizing a species of relational moral wrongdoing or interpersonal mistreatment, a tort such as negligence is a coarse doctrinal device that identifies instances of “moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay,”27 whether or not he has treated the plaintiff wrongfully. Other torts identify forms of behavior that render a defendant liable to pay compensation for resulting injuries although he has not behaved wrongfully at all. In both negligence and the other torts, a defendant may be liable to compensate a plaintiff even if he has not wronged or mistreated her. Contra the Palsgraf perspective, relational moral wrongdoing is not the basis of remedial liability, either in ordinary morality or the law of torts.
第二百六十五条 保险标的在保险期间发生几次海上保险事故所造成的损失，即使损失金额的总和超过保险金额，保险人也应当赔偿。但是，对发生部分损失后未经修复又发生全部损失的，保险人按照全部损失赔偿。
，详情可参考wps
分析：伊朗政權架構仍在運作，未來幾天將顯示它是否能夠撐下去
Более 100 домов повреждены в российском городе-герое из-за атаки ВСУ22:53