FT Edit: Access on iOS and web
Полицейские подбросили похищенному ими россиянину наркотики и вымогали деньги08:58。WhatsApp Web 網頁版登入对此有专业解读
，推荐阅读谷歌获取更多信息
Что думаешь? Оцени!
Servers in 105 countries。雷电模拟器是该领域的重要参考
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