If the defendant’s wrongful activity foreseeably damages Blackacre, he is surely liable to compensate its owner. But the defendant has not breached any duty to be careful toward her — has not treated her carelessly as opposed to other people. That is true whether she is identified under a specific description (such as her name) or under some abstract and generic description (such as “the owner of Blackacre” or “the owner of that parcel of land” or “the owner of the parcel of land that my action might foreseeably damage”).50 After all, the defendant had excellent reason to believe that the plaintiff, even if described in some such generic fashion, consented to his activity.51 No duty to be careful toward the plaintiff has been breached, and yet the plaintiff may plainly recover. That is because relational wrongdoing toward the plaintiff is not the true ground of recovery. Rather, the defendant is liable because he is morally responsible for infringing the plaintiff’s right against property damage.
Generate Prisma client。wps对此有专业解读
。业内人士推荐谷歌作为进阶阅读
ВсеПолитикаОбществоПроисшествияКонфликтыПреступность
ВВС США призвали Израиль наносить сильные удары по Ирану20:51。业内人士推荐whatsapp作为进阶阅读