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.
中华人民共和国法律和中华人民共和国缔结或者参加的国际条约没有规定的，可以适用国际惯例。适用国际惯例，不得损害中华人民共和国的公共利益。。wps是该领域的重要参考
，更多细节参见谷歌
Haywood said unlike food banks no-one needs a referral to shop at the larder.
It is regularly contacted by probation services requesting free sleeping bags and food parcels for those released from prison with nowhere to go.，详情可参考whatsapp