The Article proceeds as follows. Part I outlines the Palsgraf perspective and compares it to the pigeonhole perspective. It explains how, on the latter, the common law of torts is implementing a set of moral principles about a defendant’s responsibility for unjust damage (infringing the plaintiff’s rights against injury) and the resulting remedial moral liability, which are more directly implemented by the tort liability rules we find in civil law. Part II compares the Palsgraf perspective and the pigeonhole perspective across a wide range of issues in tort doctrine and theory, in each case arguing that the pigeonhole perspective yields a more plausible account of the law’s operation and its underlying normative commitments. The Article’s Conclusion briefly explores some methodological implications regarding the role of legal fiction and doctrinal opacity in interpretive private law theory, and some deeper philosophical questions about whether tort law’s underlying moral commitments can ultimately survive reflective philosophical scrutiny.
Play Store battery warningGoogle
，详情可参考黑料
Стало известно о существенных потерях рода войск ВСУ в Харьковской области21:00，更多细节参见传奇私服新开网｜热血传奇SF发布站｜传奇私服网站
США недооценили действия Ирана в конфликте08:39