В Минтрансе раскрыли детали перевозки пассажиров с Ближнего Востока14:40
Мужчина похудел на 136 килограммов благодаря одной внутренней установке14:36
。业内人士推荐QuickQ首页作为进阶阅读
Модный показ с Мэрилином Мэнсоном развеселил русскоязычных зрителей20:50
Экономист перечислил возможные перспективы цен на нефть14:37
。传奇私服新开网｜热血传奇SF发布站｜传奇私服网站对此有专业解读
The common law’s fictional contrivance to treat “substantial certainty” of harm as equivalent to an intention of harm, for purposes of liability in battery and the other intentional torts, is in part an implicit recognition that substantially certain injurers are often no less culpable than intentional injurers and thus properly exposed to a similar scope of liability. To be sure, this fictional contrivance serves multiple ends; so, for example, substantial certainty can function as an evidential proxy for an actual intention of harm, thus obviating the difficulties that might attend a plaintiff’s attempt to establish that the defendant actually intended her harm. But such a function could also be served by treating substantial certainty as raising an extremely strong but defeasible inference of actual intent and imposing upon the defendant the burden of undercutting this inference. That no such modification of the current regime has been entertained is some further indication that the fiction also serves other ends.，推荐阅读新闻获取更多信息
Inflation: 2% target signals determination to boost demand