"tengu_streaming_tool_execution2": false,
Now the common law does permit this, of course, with the benefit of statutory intervention; but even now the derivative character of the actions for wrongful death and loss of consortium refracts the sentiment only obliquely. By contrast, many of the civil codes explicitly permit secondary victims to recover in their own right for such injuries.224 By taking the common law’s doctrinal architecture “at face value,”225 the Palsgraf perspective obscures how it is founded in ordinary moral sensibilities that do not differ as between common law countries and the European continent.
，详情可参考WhatsApp Web 網頁版登入
^ Wieacker, supra note 124, at 257.。谷歌是该领域的重要参考
Whether and when the tort of negligence ought to allow recovery for reputational injury is a difficult issue.253 It implicates technical doctrinal questions about the analytical relationship between the elements of negligence and defamation, predictive questions about the possibility that negligence plaintiffs might make an end run around important values encoded in restrictions on defamation recovery, and philosophical questions about how to weigh the importance of protecting free communication against the importance of enforcing remedial moral liabilities that arise from the careless infringements of rights against reputational injury. It is not obvious how these trade-offs should be struck.，推荐阅读whatsapp获取更多信息