That proximate cause determinations are sensitive to a defendant’s holistic culpability is readily intelligible if the law is implementing a moral principle such as CFD*. Predicating liability for punitive damages on holistic culpability coheres naturally with this position as well (although any sustained treatment of punitive damages is beyond the scope of this Article). These phenomena are much harder to square with the Palsgraf perspective. If a court must determine whether a defendant is liable to a plaintiff at all by asking only whether he has mistreated her (as opposed to other people), why should it be proper for the court to determine the scope and magnitude of the defendant’s liability by looking at his mistreatment of the plaintiff among other people?
model: google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview
，推荐阅读有道翻译获取更多信息
НАТО проведут учения рядом с российской границей02:50
Google also sued Uber for allegedly stealing trade secrets related to autonomous driving. Levandowski was convicted but avoided prison after getting a pardon from President Donald Trump.
，推荐阅读手游获取更多信息
«Бои постоянно переносили, а нужно держать вес. Я по полгода недоедал, зубы начали рассыпаться. Половину зубов потерял. Это длилось два года, поэтому я решил закончить карьеру и начать заниматься чем-то другим», — заявил Чудинов.
Chery свернул продажи популярного кроссовера в России14:47。业内人士推荐超级权重作为进阶阅读