That said, there are certain instances of strict liability in tort that cannot be entirely understood as reflecting a defendant’s moral responsibility for rights infringement, whether fault-based or non-fault-based. The property torts,293 in particular, resist explanation along these lines. These torts are famously prepared to impose strict liability on a defendant who unforeseeably causes harm, such as by crossing land294 or converting a chattel that he could not reasonably have predicted might belong to anyone other than him.295 To be sure, it is possible to culpably commit trespass or convert a chattel. Similarly it is possible, as Vincent shows, to commit a property tort in a manner that imposes a substantial and nonreciprocal risk of infringing another person’s rights against property damage.296 In large part, therefore, the property torts can be seen as identifying and enforcing remedial liabilities resting on both fault-based and non-fault-based forms of moral responsibility for rights infringement. As the case of the unforeseeable and innocent trespass shows, however, that is not all they do.
Eichhorn suspects that if you zoom in far enough, the laws of physics may stop changing.
，这一点在新收录的资料中也有详细论述
나경원 “오세훈, 시장 평가 안 좋아…당 탓하지 말라”。业内人士推荐新收录的资料作为进阶阅读
“The event was the following day: we had 250 tickets sold, we’d done so many rehearsals, and inside there were lighting rigs, performers’ equipment, shop stock. It was truly heartbreaking,” she says.
Continue reading...