Thus, it is a familiar observation in the case law, doctrinal commentary, and restatements, that intentional torts such as battery will subject a tortious wrongdoer to a far wider scope of liability than the tort of negligence150: “The rule of legal (proximate) cause . . . for intentional torts sweeps very broadly, almost to the full reach of factual causation.”151 The law seems to draw the boundaries of proximate cause more widely in battery than in negligence because the law takes intention to harm as a rough but serviceable proxy for agential culpability, which (as the law recognizes) expands the range of risks for which a wrongdoer bears remedial moral responsibility. As an early twentieth-century American case put it: “For an intended injury the law is astute to discover even very remote causation . . . because it has been felt to be just and reasonable that liability should extend to results further removed when certain elements of fault [are] present.”152
СюжетВзрыв на Крымском мосту
。viber对此有专业解读
Мерц резко сменил риторику во время встречи в Китае09:25
Date: March 10, 2026
再看看东方雨虹近几年的业绩：2024年利润急剧下降到只有1.08亿元。预计2025年有可能由盈转亏。