The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 1 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
UniversityPressScholarshipOnlineOxfordScholarshipOnline
ThePhilosophicalFoundationsofTortLawDavidG.Owen
Printpublicationdate:1997PrintISBN-13:9780198265795PublishedtoOxfordScholarshipOnline:March2012DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198265795.001.0001
TheBasisforExcludingLiabilityforEconomicLossinTortLawPETERBENSON
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198265795.003.0020
AbstractandKeywords
Thischapterfocusesontheso-calledexclusionaryruleandthebasisforexcludingliabilityforeconomiclossintortlaw.Itexaminesfivedifferentsituationsintowhicheconomiclosscasescanbedivided.Thefirstexclusionarysituationistypifiedbycircumstanceswherethedefendantdamagessomethinginwhichtheplaintiffmayhaveacontractualinterest(orsomethingelsethatislessthanapossessoryorproprietaryright)andthisimpairstheplaintiffsinterest,causinghimfinancialloss.Thetwoothernon-exclusionarysituationsarewheretheplaintiffsfinanciallossarisesthroughaspecialrelationshipofjustifieddetrimentalreliancebytheplaintiffonthedefendant,andwhereitresultsfromthedefendantsintentionalinterferencewiththeplaintiffscontractwithathirdparty.
Keywords:tortliability,economicloss,tortlaw,exclusionaryrule,damages,defendant,plaintiff,contract,thirdparty,intentionalinterference
I.Introduction
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 2 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
Myaiminthisessayistosketchajustificationforthetraditionalexclusionoftortliabilityforcertaincategoriesofnegligentlycausedpureeconomicloss.Ihavechosentofocusontheso-calledexclusionaryrulebecause,evenafterextensivescholarlydiscussionanddespitethecontinuingauthorityoftherule,thereisstilllittleagreementastoitsunderlyingrationale.Thereisevenlessconfidencethatitsstrictapplicationisconsistentwithotheraspectsofthelawstreatmentofeconomiclossorwithfundamentalprinciplesoftortlaw.Bywayofintroduction,IwillfirstbrieflyidentifythemainsituationsthatraiseanissueoftortliabilityforeconomiclossandthengiveapreliminaryideaofthekindofjustificationthatIwillpropose,indicatinghowitdiffersinapproachfrommostcurrenteffortstoaccountforthisareaoftortlaw.
A.ClassifyingEconomicLossSituationsThisessayexaminesfivedifferentsituationsintowhicheconomiclosscasescanbedivided.Inthefirsttwosituations,whichmaybethoughtofasexclusionary,courtsholdthateconomiclossmaynotberecovered.Intheremainingthreesituations,bycontrast,courtshavepermittedrecovery.Thedefiningfeaturesofeachofthefivesituationsshouldbebrieflyidentified.
Thefirstexclusionarysituationistypifiedbycircumstanceswherethedefendantdamagessomethinginwhichtheplaintiffmayhaveacontractualinterest(orsomethingelsethatislessthanapossessoryorproprietaryright)andthisimpairstheplaintiffsinterest,causinghimfinancialloss.(IshallrefertothisasSituationI).1Forexample,Imayhavearightby(p.428) contractwithathirdparty,orjustaliberty,tousethethirdpartysbridgeformybusinesspurposes.Asaconsequenceofthedefendantdamagingthebridge,thecontractmaybefrustratedorImaynolongerbeabletoexercisemylibertyandImustseekalternativemeanstoaccomplishmyends,resultingineconomicloss.EversincethelandmarknineteenthcenturyEnglishcaseofCattle,English,American,andCommonwealthcourtswithveryfewexceptionshaveconsistentlyheldthatinsuchcircumstancesthedefendantcannotbeliableinnegligencefortheloss,whetherornotitwasforeseeable.Theplaintiffsclaimforrecoverywillbedismissedforfailuretostateacauseofaction.Financiallossthatarisesfromphysicaldamagetosomethingwhichtheplaintiffneitherownsnorpossessesisoftenreferredtointhedecisionsandinlegalscholarshipasrelationaleconomicloss.Therulethatprecludesliabilityherehasbecomeknownastheexclusionaryrule.
Theexclusionaryrulehasrecentlybeenappliedbyanumberofthehighestappellatecourtsinasecondtypeofsituation(hereinafterSituationII).2Heretheplaintiffmayhaveacquiredachattel,forexample,thatisinherentlydefectivebecauseofthedefendantmanufacturerswantofduecareand,onaccountofthedefect,theproductposesadangerofinjurytotheplaintiffspersonorproperty(otherthanthechattel)ifitisputtouse.Theplaintiffsuesthedefendantinnegligenceforthecostofputtingthechattelinaconditionsothathecancontinuetouseitfreefromthatrisk.Thecourtscharacterizetheclaimasoneforpureeconomiclossforwhichtherecanbenoliability.
Inmarkedcontrasttothesetwoexclusionarysituations,therearethreesituationsin
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 3 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
whichcourtsregularlyholdthattherecanbeliability.Thedecisionsthatreachthisconclusionstandsidebysidethosethatapplytheexclusionaryruleandareofequalauthority.
(p.429) Inthefirstofthesenon-exclusionarysituations(hereinafterSituationIII),3thecourtsallowrecoveryforfinanciallossthatarisesincircumstancesidenticaltothosethatcomeundertheexclusionaryrule,saveforthefactthatthelossisdeemedtobeunavoidablyincurredbytheplaintiff.Inthistypeofsituation,theloss,thougheconomic,isanalogizedtophysicalinjurytotheplaintiffspersonorproperty.
Bywayofillustration,IwillgivetwoSituationIIIexamplesthatparallelthetwokindsofcircumstancesthatcomewithintheexclusionaryrule.First,inthecontextofusingsomethingthatiseitherownedorpossessedbyathirdparty,theplaintiffinvolveshisownpropertyorpersoninsuchawaythatitcanbeadverselyaffectediftheotherthing(whichhedoesnotown)isdamaged,withariskoffinanciallosstotheplaintiffasaconsequence.Supposethatthedefendantdamagesthethirdpartysthingand,beforetheplaintiffcanextricatehisownpropertyfromtheambitofdanger,itisaffectedbytheinitialdamage,causinghimfinancialloss;or,intheprocessofattemptingtoneutralizetherisktohisproperty,theplaintiffincurspurefinancialloss.Atfirstblush,thisseemstobeacaseofrelationaleconomiclossbecausetheplaintiffsinterestisimpairedasaresultofthedefendantdamagingsomethingthatbelongs,nottotheplaintiff,buttoathirdparty.Yetthecourtsdonotapplytheexclusionaryrulebutinsteadallowrecoverywheretheusualrequirementsfornegligencehavebeenmet.InthesecondSituationIIIexample,aplaintiffdoesnotknowthathischattel(whichthedefendantmanufactured)isdefectiveandthatitcancausehimfinanciallossthroughitsimpactonhisotherproperty;or,ondiscoveringthatthisisthecaseandinattemptingtoprotectthisotherpropertyfromthedanger,theplaintiffunavoidablysustainsfinanciallossasaresult.Here,too,theplaintiffcanrecover.
Thetwoothernon-exclusionarysituationsarewheretheplaintiffsfinanciallossarisesthroughaspecialrelationshipofjustifieddetrimentalreliancebytheplaintiffonthedefendant(hereinafterSituationIV),4andwhereitresultsfromthedefendantsintentionalinterferencewiththeplaintiffscontractwithathirdparty(hereinafterSituationV).5Toexplainthiscontrastwiththeexclusionaryrule,itwillbeessentialtobringouttherelevantdifferencesbetweenthesesituationsandthosecomingundertheexclusionaryrule.Forinthecaseofjustifieddetrimentalreliance,theloss,which(p.430) maybepurelyeconomic,canarisefromdamagedonetosomethingthattheplaintiffneitherownsnorpossesses.Andwheretheactionisforintentionalasopposedtonegligentinterferencewithcontract,amerecontractualrightqualifiesasafullyprotectedinterestoftencharacterizedasquasi-property6asagainstthedefendantwhois,ofcourse,aperfectstrangertothecontract.Itisworthnotingherethattheanalysisofcontractualrightsasquasi-propertyforthepurposesofintentionaltortisolderthantheconclusionthatsuchrightsdonotconstituteaprotectedinterestinanactionfornegligence.
B.JustificatoryApproaches
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 4 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
B.JustificatoryApproachesTheanalysisofliabilityinthefivetypesofsituationsofeconomiclossjustdiscussedtwoexclusionaryandthreenon-exclusionaryprovidesus,atleastprovisionally,withfixedpointsforwhichasatisfactoryaccountmustbesought.Iproposetodothisbyelucidatingajustificationfortheexclusionaryrule.Thecentralaimoftheessayistosuggestarationalefortherulethatdrawsonfundamentalideasandprincipleswhichunderlieallfivesituationsofeconomicloss,bindingthemtogetherasacoherentunity.
TomakeclearerthesortofexplanationthatIwillpresent,itmaybehelpfultosetitagainstthebackgroundofcurrentattempts,bothjudicialandscholarly,tojustifytheexclusionaryrule.Thesemaybrieflybecharacterizedasfollows:withbutafewnotableexceptions,theysharetheassumptionthattherationalefortheruleisnottobesoughtinanygeneralconceptionofresponsibilityandfairnessthatiswidelyregardedasunderlyingthelawofnegligenceandoftortlawasawhole.Thisapproachshouldbefurtherexplained.
Whencourts,especiallyinrecenttimes,explicitlysuggestabasisfortherule,theycommonlyrefertoconsiderationsofpolicywhich,insteadofbeingrootedinageneralconceptionofliabilityfornegligence,areexplicitlyviewedasconstrainingwhatwouldotherwisebethenormaloperationofbasicprinciplesoftortlaw.Morespecifically,theyendorsewhatJamescalledthepragmaticobjectiontoliabilityforeconomicloss,whichjustifiestheruleonthesolebasisthatitprovidesameansofavoidingindeterminateorunlimitedliability.7Underlyingthisjustificationisaconceptionof(p.431) liabilityfornegligence,usuallyassociatedwiththenowoverruledcaseofAnns,8thatdefinesproximitysolelyintermsofthecreationofariskofforeseeableloss.Itisnotdifficulttoshowthatthisviewofliabilityleadstoaproblemofindeterminacy.
Giventheevidentsocialfactoftheinterdependenceofeconomicandproprietaryinterestsinvirtueofwhichapracticallyunlimitedrangeofinterestsareintertwinedinanalmostunlimitedvarietyofways,itmustbereasonablyforeseeablethatdamagetoanyoneinterestmayaffectotherinterests,howeverremovedorindirecttheimpactmaybe.Noreverberationfromtheinitialdamage,solongasitarisesthroughthisinterdependenceofinterests,canintelligiblybedistinguishedasextraordinaryorunforeseeable.Ifwecombinethisconclusionwiththeconceptionofliabilitythatequatesproximitywithforeseeabilityofloss,theremustbeatleastaprimafaciegeneraldutytorefrainfromcausingeconomicloss,whetheritisdirectorindirect,relationalorotherwise.Theexclusionaryruleisintroducedtocontain,andindeedtocutoff,thisconsequence.Itisneeded,inotherwords,preciselybecausetheconceptionofliabilityitselfleadstoaresultwhichisdeemedtobeundesirable.Farfrombeingmutuallysupportiveorintegratedpartsofalargerconception,theunderstandingofliabilityandtheexclusionaryrulearethusindirecttensionwitheachother.
Asfortheoreticalwriting,thefewsystematicattemptstoprovidearationalefortheexclusionaryruledrawexplicitlyoneconomicconcepts.9Themaindifficultywiththisapproach,inallitsdifferentversions,isthatitinvariablyneglectsorrejectscertaindistinctionsandrequirementsthatthecasesusuallytreatasessentialinreasoningtowardtheirconclusions;10orelseitintroducesnewconsiderationsandlaysstresson
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 5 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
factorsofwhichthereisnotraceofinfluenceinthejudgements.11Thosewhoadoptthis(p.432) approachdonotjustifytheirdeparturefromjudicialreasoningonthebasisofanysupposedincompletenessinexistinglegalanalysisnordotheypointtoanylackoffitamongtheconsiderationsandprinciplesthatthelawinvokes.Theydisregardoraddtothereasoningfoundinthecasessimplybecausethisiscalledforbyeconomictheory.Butthisapproachfailstotakeseriouslyonitsowntermstheveryobjectthatissupposedlyunderinvestigation,namely,thelaw.Weareentitledtoexpectmorefromatheorythatpurportstobeatheoryoflaw.
TheapproachthatItakeinthisessaydiffersfundamentallyfromthesecurrenteffortsatjustification.Ishallattempttoroottheexclusionaryruleinarationalethatrestsessentiallyonaconceptionofliability,oratleastonanaspectthereof,whichispresupposedthroughoutthelawofnegligence.Iwilltrytodothisbyusingtheverycategories,principles,andconsiderationsonwhichcourtsrelyinreachingtheirconclusionsaboutliability.Becausethisaccountdrawsonandarticulatesideasthatarealreadyavailableinthepubliclegalculture,evenifonlylatently,itpresentsitselfasapublicjustificationoftheexclusionaryrule.12Inthisway,apublicjustificationpurportstobeinternaltothelaw.
Forthepurposesofthisessay,itwillsufficeifIamabletouncoverinthecasesadefiniteandcoherentconceptionofliabilitythatexplainstheexclusionaryruleandtoshowthattheconceptionisonewhichfitswiththeanalysisofliabilityinthefivesituationsofeconomiclossoutlinedaboveaswellaswithfundamentalprinciplesofnegligence.Mygoalistoidentifythatconceptionandtomakeclearitsessentialcharacteristics.Ishallnotanalyzeitsmoralbasisbyexplicatingitsunderlyingnotionofjusticeorbyjustifyingitfromamoralpointofview.13Nonetheless,Ibelievethatthefollowingdiscussionsetsoutthefirstcrucialstepintheelaborationofasatisfactorypublicjustificationfortheanalysisofliabilityinthecentralcasesofpureeconomicloss.Givenpresentdisagreementabout,andevensheerfailuretoexplain,therationaleandscopeoftheexclusionaryrule,ithopefullyaddressesaneedofourpubliclegalculture.Atstakeistheverypossibilityofacoherent,acceptable,andwidelysharedunderstandingofthereasonsunderpinningthelawofpureeconomiclossand,Iaimtoshow,ofabasicandpermanentfeatureofourconceptionofnegligence.
(p.433) II.TheReasonfortheExclusionaryRuleFormorethanacentury,virtuallyuninterruptedchainsofauthoritythatdevelopedevenindetailalongsimilarlinesintheBritishCommonwealthandintheUnitedStateshaveconsistentlyappliedtheexclusionaryruletoactionsinnegligenceforrelationaleconomicloss.Farfromabolishingorevenrestrictingtherule,courtstookittoitsnaturallimit,generalizingitsprincipleandfillingoutitsscopeandapplication.Andtheydidthisduringthesameperiodinwhichtheywereelaboratingamodernlawofnegligencethatpushedliabilityforphysicalinjuriestowardthefullextentofwhatwasforeseeableandshatteredancientbarrierstorecoverybasedonlimitationsassociatedwithprivityofcontractandsimilarrestrictiveconcepts.14Onwhatbasisdidthecourtsreachaconclusionseeminglyindirecttensionwiththebasictendencyofthelaw?
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 6 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
Apointthathasbeenmaderepeatedlybybothcourtsandscholarsandsohasnowbecomefamiliaristhatthelawdidnotexcludeliabilityonthegroundthatsuchlossiseitherunforeseeableorfinancial.Thecaseshavemadeclearthat,ontheonehand,economiclossmaybeperfectlyforeseeableandyetnon-actionable,and,ontheother,thatpurelyeconomicinterestswillreceiveincertaincircumstancesthefullprotectionaccordedbytortlawtointerestsinpersonandproperty.
Lesswidelynoticed,however,isthestrikingfactthatmany,ifnotmost,ofthecasesthathaveupheldtheexclusionaryrulehavedonesowithoutmakinganyreferencetoapragmaticconcernoverextensiveliability.ThisisespeciallytrueoftheEnglish,Commonwealth,andolderAmericanauthorities.Inthisrespect,HolmesimportantopinioninRobins,15inwhichthisconsiderationofpolicydoesnotappeartoplayanyrolewhatever,isfullyrepresentativeofthemajorityofcases.Infact,thereareanumberofdecisions,amongthemLordPenzancesinfluentialspeechinSimpson16andthelaterdiscussionofWidgeryJinWeller,17thatsetoutwithgreatclarityanddetailthekindsoffar-reachingconsequencesthatmustfollowiftheplaintiffsclaimisvalid.Yet,thesejudgesgoonexpresslytosaythattheirrejectionoftheclaimdoesnot,andshouldnot,restonthispotentialforextensiveliability:[t]hemagnitudeoftheseconsequencesmustnotbeallowedtodeprivetheplaintiffsoftheirrights,butitemphasisestheimportanceofthecase.18Explicitjudicialendorsementofthepragmaticjustification,especiallybyEnglishcourts,iswithfewexceptionsarecent(p.434) phenomenon.19WhenLordOliverremarkedthatasIreadthosecases[whererecoveryforeconomiclosswasdenied]itwasnottheeconomicqualityofthedamagewhichpreventedrecoverybutthereasonwhythatdamagehadoccurred,20hecorrectlyandneatlystatedthegeneralview.
A.TheCommonFactorintheExclusionarySituationsIncircumstancesofrelationaleconomicloss(SituationI),thereasonwhythedamagehasoccurredis,first,thattheplaintiffhasacontractualinterestfallingshortofaproprietaryorapossessoryright,withrespecttosomethingownedorpossessedbyathirdparty;and,secondly,theplaintiffsustainsfinanciallosswhenhisinterestinthatthingisimpairedbythedefendantdamagingit.Forexample,theplaintiffmayhaveacontractualrightagainstathirdpartytousethelattersbridgeforbusinesspurposes,andtheplaintiffsuffersfinanciallosswhenheisnolongerabletousethebridgeafterthedefendantdamagesit.Thecourtsviewthissetofcircum-stancesandnothingmoreasasufficientbasisforprecludingliability.Thereasonthelawreachesthisconclusionwouldseem,then,primafacietolieinthesecircumstancesthemselves,whichthereforerequirecloseranalysis.
Theplaintiffsclaimiswithrespecttoaninterestthatarisesthroughacontractwithathirdparty.Theplaintiffmaybeentitledbythecontracttouse,say,thethirdpartyschatteltohisadvantageortobenefitfromitinsomeway;orhemaybeobligedbythecontracttomaintainthechattelinacertainconditionortoshouktervariousexpensesifitisdamaged.Asaresultofthedefendantdamagingit,theplaintiffsadvantagesmayberenderedlessbeneficialorhisobligationsmademoreonerous,givingrisetofinancialloss.Togeneralizeandtosimplifysomewhat,wemaysaythattheplaintiffsinterestinthe
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 7 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
chattelissuchthatachangeinthechattelscondition(caused,forinstance,bythedefendantsfailuretouseduecare)willaffecttheusetowhichtheplaintiffiscontractuallyentitledorobligedto(p.435) putit,therebyreducingthebenefitsorincreasingtheburdensassociatedwiththatuse.
However,theplaintiffhasnoproprietaryorpossessoryrightinthechattel.Morespecifically,theplaintiffcannotshowthatatthemomentofthedefendantswrong,andindependentlyofit,hepossessesaproprietaryorapossessoryrightinthechattelfoundedonalegallyrecognizedgroundsuchasdemisecharter,bailment,oreasement.
Atcommonlaw,aproprietaryorpossessoryrightinsomethingentitlesapersontoexcludeanyoneelsefromusingitwithouthisconsent,solongasthefirstpersonhas,relativetoothers,abetterclaimtoitinownershiporpossession.21Ifaplaintifflacksaproprietaryorpossessoryrightinsomething,hehasnolegalstandingtoconstrainadefendantfromintentionallyusingitasthedefendantseesfit,evenifthisimpairsorinterfereswiththeplaintiffsinterests.Inotherwords,thedefendantcannotbeliabletotheplaintiffforsuchharmfulconsequences.Andifthisissowhentheconsequenceisintended,thesamemustbetruewhenitisbroughtaboutbythedefendantsnegligence.
Inadditiontopropertyandpossession,thereisoneotherpossiblebasisofexclusiverightinprivatelaw,namely,contract.However,contractualrights,incontrasttoproprietaryorpossessoryrights,arepersonalrightsthatareagainstadefiniteindividualordefiniteindividuals,sothatthefactthattheremaybeacontractualrightagainstonepersondoesnotinitselfimplythatthereisanexclusiverightagainstanyoneelse.22Nowincircumstancesofrelationaleconomicloss,theplaintiffssoleexclusiverighttotheuseofthedamagedchattelis,byhypothesis,acontractualrightagainstsomeoneotherthanthedefendant.Therefore,asagainstthedefendant,theplaintiffdoesnothaveanyrightatalltotheexclusiveuseofthechattel.Inotherwords,theplaintiffhasnolegalgroundsforcomplaintifthedefendantintentionallyornegligentlydamagesthechattel,therebydeprivingtheplaintiffofitsusewithresultingeconomiclosstohim.
Relativetothedefendant,thelegalsignificanceoftheplaintiffscontractualinterestcomestothis:heseeksprotectionofaninterestintheuseofsomethingfromwhichhehasnorighttoexcludethedefendant.ThistensionisidentifiedbyHolmes,whomakesitthegroundofhisdecisioninRobins:justicedoesnotpermitthatthepetitionerbechargedwiththefullvalueofthelossofuseunlessthereissomeonewhohasaclaimtoitasagainstthepetitioner;23Itseems,then,thatthedifficultywiththe(p.436) plaintiffsactionisnotthatthelossiseitherunforeseeableorfinancialorthatitcarrieswithitathreatofindeterminateliabilityandsomustfailasamatterofpolicy.Rather,theplaintifflacksarightonwhichtoresttheinterestthatformstheverybasisofhisclaim,andthisisdeemedtobefatalfromthestandpointofjustice.Since,onthisview,theproblematicaspectoftheclaimistheabsenceofarightorjus,therationalefortheexclusionaryrulemaybecharacterizedasjuridical.
Whatismore,thissameanalysisseemstoholdforthesecondsituationinwhichcourtshaveappliedtheexclusionaryrule.Here,thereadermayrecall,theplaintiffsfinancial
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 8 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
lossconsistsinthecostofrepairingsomethingdefectivewhichheownssothathecancontinuetouseitwithoutdangerofinjurytohimselfortohisotherproperty.Thedefect,wesuppose,hasresultedfromthedefendantswantofduecare.Wefurtherassumethatthereisnocontractbetweentheparties.Forexample,intheimportantrecentEnglishcase,Murphyv.BrentwoodDistrictCouncil,24theplaintiffpurchasedfromaconstructioncompanyanewlybuilthousewhosedesignhadbeen(negligently,asitturnedout)approvedbythedefendantcouncil.Induecourse,theplaintiffnoticedthatthehousewasseriouslydefective,bothinitsstructureandinitsfoundation.Thesedefectsposedariskofimminentdangertothehealthandsafetyoftheoccupants.Unabletocarryoutthenecessaryrepairs,theplaintiffdecidedtosellthehouse,subjecttothedefects,foranamountconsiderablylessthanitsmarketvalueinsoundcondition.Theplaintiffsuedforthedifference.
Amongtheseveralleadingdecisionsthathaverecentlydeniedliabilityinthesecircumstances,noneissoperspicuousasLordOliversspeechinMurphy.AlthoughtheplaintiffsclaiminMurphywasforexpendituresmadeorneededtocorrectasituationinvolvingariskofphysicalinjury,LordOlivercharacterizedthelossaspurelyeconomicandascomingundertheexclusionaryrule,inthisregarddisagreeingfundamentallywithAnns.Heviewedthelossinthiswaybecause[t]heinjurywillnotnoweveroccurunlesstheplaintiffcausesittodosobycourtingadangerofwhichheisawareandhisexpenditureisincurrednotinpreventinganotherwiseinevitableinjurybutinordertoenablehimtocontinuetousethepropertyorthechattel.25Onthisview,whattheplaintiffsoughttoprotectwasaninterestinbeingabletousesomethinginacertain(safe)condition:theclaimwasforthecostofputtinghisdefectivepropertyinshapesothathecouldhavethebenefitofitsuse(ifonlyitsresalevalue)inanimprovedcondition.Butwhiletheplaintiffmayhaveownedthepropertyhewishedtoameliorate,whatheactuallyownedatthemomenthediscoveredthedefect,andthedangeritposed,wasjustdefectiveproperty.Thepropertyinanimprovedconditionwasnothispresentpropertyorpossession.Itsimply(p.437) didnotyetexist.Andonthefacts,theplaintiffdidnothaveagainstthedefendantacontractualoranyotherrighttothefuturepossessionandenjoymentofthepropertyinanon-defectivecondition.Here,justasinthefirstsituation,thefundamentaldifficultywiththeplaintiffsclaimseemstobethatitwaspremisedonhishavingaprotectedinterestintheuseofsomethingoverwhichhecouldnotestablishanyrightasagainstthedefendant.
Onthebasisofthisanalysisofthetwoexclusionarysituations,wearenowinapositiontoidentifyinapreliminarywaywhatcourtsseemtoregardastheessentialdifficultywiththeplaintiffsclaiminboth:theclaimiswithrespecttoaninterestintheuseofsomethingoverwhichtheplaintifflacksanexclusiverightasagainstthedefendant.Inthefirstsituation,althoughnotinthesecond,theplaintiffhasacontractualinterestinthechatteldamagedbythedefendant.Thisdifference,however,isimmaterial.Thesignificanceoftheplaintiffscontractualinterestinthefirstsituationissimplythatitestablishesthathisclaimis,withrespecttobenefitsorburdens,associatedwiththeuseofthechattel.26Butthiscanbeshowninotherways.Forinstance,theplaintiffmaysimplyrelyonthepossibilityofusingsomethingwithouthavingacontractualrighttodoso,orhemayhavethekindof
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 9 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
interestinuseevidencedinthedefectivechattelcasesjustdiscussed.Similarly,thefactthatinthefirstsituation,butnotthesecond,thereisathirdpartywhoownsorpossessesthepropertywhichtheplaintiffwishestouseisalsoaninessentialdifference.Inbothsituations,theplaintiffhasnorightasagainstthedefendanttohavethepropertywhichhewishestouseavailableinaconditionthatissuitableforhisuse,whetherthisisbecausethepropertybelongstoathirdpartyorbecausewhatbelongstotheplaintiffisonlythepropertyinadefectivecondition.
B.DistinguishingUnavoidableEconomicLossThusfarIhavesuggestedabasisfortheexclusionaryrulebyspecifyingwhatiscommontothetwosituations(IandII)offinanciallossinwhichtheruleisapplied.Thisconclusionmustnowbetestedbyseeingwhetheritisconsistentwiththefactthatcourtspermitrecoveryforfinanciallossincertaindefectivepropertycasesandincertaincircumstancesofrelationaleconomicloss.
IntheMurphycasediscussedabove,LordOliverdistinguishescertaincircumstancesinwhichhewouldnotapplytheexclusionaryrule:theplaintiffcanrecoverwherehesustainsfinanciallossinpreventinganotherwiseinevitableinjury.ItakeLordOlivertobereferringheretowhatIidentified(p.438) earlierasSituationIII,inwhichtheplaintiffattemptstoinsulatehisotherpropertyfromtheriskimposedbyhisdefectivechattel,andheunavoidablyincursfinanciallossintheprocessofdoingso.AsinSituationII,theplaintiffhereownssomethingthat,becauseofthedefendantsnegligence,posesadangertotheplaintiffspersonorotherproperty.Thedistinguishingfeatureofthisthirdsituationisthatasaresultofordespitetheplaintiffseffortstoavoidthedanger,heunavoidablysuffersfinancialloss.Economiclossthatarisesinthiswayisanalyzedaspartofphysicalinjurytopersonorpropertyandisrecoverableifreasonablyforeseeable.
Moreover,courtsalsoviewcertaincasesofrelationaleconomiclossinthissamelight.Atypicalsituationiswheretheplaintiffisusingsomethingthatbelongstoathirdpartyinsuchawaythatifitisdamaged,theplaintiffsownpropertymaybeendangered.27Thedefendantdamagesthethirdpartyspropertyandtheplaintiffunavoidablysuffersfinanciallossbeforehecanextricatehispropertyfromthedangerorasaresultofhisattempttodoso.AlthoughthelossiseconomicandrelationalbecauseitisfinanciallossthatisconsequentialondamagedonetosomethingthattheplaintiffneitherownsnorpossessesandsoseemsinthisrespectatleasttobeindistinguishablefromSituationI,theexclusionaryruleisnotapplied.28
Howdoweaccountforthefactthatthelawgrantsrecoveryinthesecasesofunavoidablefinancialloss?Whatwemustdetermineiswhetherthesecasesshareacommonfeaturewhichdistinguishesthemintelligiblyfromthecircumstancesthatfallundertheexclusionaryrule.Inthefollowingdiscussion,Ibeginwithandfocusonunavoidablerelationaleconomicloss.Idothisbecauserelationaleconomiclossistheoldestandbestestablishedcategoryoflosstocomeundertheexclusionaryrule;therefore,itisespeciallyimportanttoexplainwhycertainformsofrelationallossareregularlyexemptedfromitsapplication.
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 10 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
Likecasesofrelationaleconomiclossthatcomeundertheexclusionaryrule,unavoidablerelationallossalsooccursbecause,inthecontextoftheplaintiffusingsomethingwhichheneitherownsnorpossesses,hesuffersfinanciallosswhenthatthingisdamagedbythedefendant.Forexample,supposethattheplaintiff,acaterer,ownsandusesanumberofrefrigeratorsthataresuppliedwithelectricitybyathird-partypowercompanyundercontract,andthatthissupplyisunexpectedlyinterruptedduringthenightasaresultofthedefendantnegligentlydamagingthepowercompanyselectricalcable.Unlesstheplaintiffcantakehisfoodoutofhisnon-functioningrefrigerators,withinabriefperiodoftime,itwillspoil.Todo(p.439) this,however,hemustpayaworkeranextrafeetoperformthisemergencynight-timework.Thefoodissuccessfullyremovedandtheplaintiffseekstorecoverdamagesfromthedefendantfortheextranight-timelaborfeepaidtotheworker.Nowitmightbethoughtthatinmakingaclaimforthislosstheplaintiffmustinvokearighttoexcludethedefendantfrominterferingwiththeplaintiffsuseofsomethingwhichheneitherownsnorpossesses(thesupplyofelectricitythroughthecable),makingthissituationindistinguishablefromrelationallosscasesthatcomeundertheexclusionaryrule.This,however,wouldbemistaken.Thelossoccurshereinaqual-itativelydifferentway.Thisneedstobeexplained.
Theplaintiffsclaimhereinvolvestheassertionagainstthedefendantofaright,nottohavethecontinuedortheunimpaireduseofsomethingwhichtheplaintiffdoesnotownorpossess,butrathertobefreefrominjurycausedtohispersonorproperty.Thefinanciallossthatissufferedbytheplaintiffresultsjustfromhisefforttoprotecthispropertyfromtheveryriskimposedonhimbythedefendant,viz.,thatthefoodwillspoilifleftinthenon-functioningrefrigerators.Thefinanciallosshereoccursthroughtheplaintiffsproperty(refrigerators)beingsoconnectedwiththethirdpartysproperty(cable)thattheformercanbeaffected,aspartofasinglecausalsequence,byconductthatimpingesonthelatter.Itiscertainlytrue,inourexample,thatthisconnectionexistsbecausetheplaintiffhaschosentomakeuseofthethirdpartyssupplyofelectricity.However,heneednotresthisclaimtorecoverforfinanciallossonapurportedrighttopreventthedefendantfrommakingtheelectricalcableunfitforhisuse.Theclaimonlyrequiresthatthedefendantnotaffectthecableinsuchawaythattheplaintiffsustainsalossbeforehecan(orasaresultofhisattemptingto)extricatehispropertyfromtheambitofrisk.Theclaimneedreferonlytotheseveringandnottothemaintenanceoftheconnectionbetweentheplaintiffspropertyandthethingthatheisusingbutdoesnotown.Thefactthattheinjurytakesplaceincircumstancesoftheplaintiffusinganothersthinggoesonlytotheparticularmannerorcausalsequencethroughwhichtheinjuryisbroughtabout.Itdoesnotimplyaright,asagainstthedefendant,topresentorfutureuseofthething.
Theplaintiffsactionforfinanciallosshererestsonthesameimplicitclaimofrightagainstthedefendantaswouldanactionagainstthedefendantforthevalueofthefood,supposinginsteadthatithadspoiledbeforetheplaintiffhadareasonableopportunitytotakeitout.Thereisnodoubtthat,assumingthatrequirementsofcausation,foreseeability,andsoforth,weremet,therecouldberecoveryforthislosseventhoughitwasconsequentialontheplaintiffusingsomething(thepowercompanyselectrical
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 11 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
cable)whichheneitherownednorpossessed.Itwouldbeviewedasacaseofsimpleinjurytoproperty.Thepointisthatinbothsituationstheoneinvolvingapurefinancialloss,theotherpropertydamagetheplaintiff(p.440) doesnothavetoassertimplicitlyagainstthedefendantarighttothecontinueduseandbenefitofthethirdpartyscableinordertomakeouthisclaimforrecovery.Theplaintiffsfinanciallossarisingfromthepaymentoftheextrafeecanbeanalyzedintheverysametermsasacaseofinjurytoproperty.
Tobringoutthelimitsofthisclaimforfinancialloss,considerthefollowingclaimsbywayofcontrast.Suppose,forinstance,thatbecausetheediblecannotberepairedforseveraldays,theplaintiffisobligedtorentotherrefrigeratorstopreservehisfood,forwhichexpenseheseekscompensation.Orsecondly,supposethattheplaintiffsactionagainstthedefendantistorecoverthatpartofthefeepaidtotheworkerwhichwouldhavebeenchargedanywayinordinarycircumstancesforremovalofthefood.Orfinally,supposethattheplaintiffclaimstheprofithewouldhaveearnedhadhebeenabletocontinuetousehisownrefrigeratorsandtodisposeofthefoodinhisusualway.Ineach,theplaintiffsclaimisvalidonlyifwepresupposethathehas,asagainstthedefendant,arighttocontinuetoreceiveandtobenefitfromthethirdpartyselectricityandthereforearightasagainstthedefendanttothecontinueduseofafunctioningrefrigerator.Thelossesherehappeninthesamewaythatrelationaleconomiclossoccursinthosecasesthatcomeundertheexclusionaryrule.Theselossesrepresentbutdifferentconsequencesofthematerializationofthesameriskthattheplaintiffmaylosetheuseofthethirdpartyscableasaresultofthedefendantsnegligencesomethingquitedifferentfromtheriskthattheplaintiffsfoodwillspoilifunavoidablyleftinthenon-functioningrefrigerators.Thelatterrisksimplynolongerexists;theplaintiffhashadareasonableopportunitytoremovethefoodunspoiled.Inthisrespect,theseclaimsforfinanciallossarenotdifferentfromaclaimofpropertylossarisingincircumstanceswheretheplaintiffhasdeliberatelycourtedtheriskofspoilagebyputtingfoodinhisrefrigeratorsafterheknowsthemtobenon-functioning.Inboth,theplaintiffsclaimwouldhavetorestonthesameimplicitassertionofright:thatasagainstthedefendant,theplaintiffhasarighttothecontinueduseofthethirdpartyselectricity.
Moreover,thisanalysisofUnavoidablerelationaleconomiclossalsoholdsforthedefectiveproductcasesdistinguishedbyLordOliverasnotcomingundertheexclusionaryrule.Inthosecases,theplaintiffsustainsafinanciallossbecauseofhisefforttoavoidtheveryriskofinjurytohimselfortohisotherpropertyposedbyadefectivechattel(whichheowns).Thefinanciallossthatheclaimsisnotthecostofcorrectingthechattelsdefectsothathecancontinuetouseitwithoutdangertohimselfortohisotherproperty,butjusttheexpense,ifany,thatheunavoidablyincursinattemptingtoputhimselforhisotherpropertyoutsidetheambitofperceiveddanger.Iftheplaintiffcandothis(aswillusuallybethecase)by(p.441) simplyceasingtousethedefectivechatteloncehehasbecomeawareofthedangerposed,therewillbenorecovery.Theonlyexceptionwouldbewhere,intheparticularcircumstances,theplaintiffhastoincurcoststoenablehimjusttoceaseusingthechattelortoundertakefurthermeasurestoprotecthimselforothersifthedangerposedbythechattelcontinuesdespitehisceasingtouse
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 12 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
it.Thisanalysisensuresthattherightclaimedbytheplaintiffagainstthedefendantisnotarighttotheuseofsomethingthatisnothis(viz.,thechattelinanon-defectivecondition),butonlyarighttotheintegrityofhispersonorproperty(otherthanthechattel).29Andthefactthatthechattelisownedbytheplaintiffandnot,asincasesofrelationalloss,byathirdpersondoesnotaffectthebasicnatureoftheplaintiffsclaimhere.ItisnodifferentfromaclaimforUnavoidablerelationalloss.
Thisbriefdiscussionofthecasesofunavoidablefinanciallossmakesclearthatthelegalanalysiswhichtreatsthemdifferentlyfromactionsbarredbytheexclusionaryruleturnsonadifferencebetweenthemthatisbothintelligibleandcategorical.Withoutattemptingtoprovideadeeperjustificationforthislegalanalysis,wecanstillsaythatthecircumstanceswhichthelawviewsasdifferentdoindeedinvolvedifferenttypesofpossiblelegalclaims.Andwecanstatethelatterinintuitivelyintelligibleandstraightforwardterms.Moreover,ourdiscussionalsoexplainswhytherealdifficultywithactionsbarredbytheexclusionaryruledoesnotlieinthefactthattheyareforlossthatiseithereconomicorunforeseeable.Thedeterminingfactorseemstobethekindofclaimthattheplaintiffmustimplicitlyasserttoestablishhisloss.Itshouldbeemphasizedthatanactiontorecoverforphysicallosstopropertymayrestonthesamekindofclaimthatisbarredbytheexclusionaryrule.Suppose,forexample,thatthesafetyoftheplaintiffspropertydependsonhisbeingabletousesomethingwhichheneitherownsnorpossesses,andthathispropertyisdamagedwhenthethingisnolongeravailableforhisusebecauseofthedefendantswantofduecare.Justasthereisnoliabilityforrelationaleconomiclossthatrestsonaninterestofthiskind,sotoothereshouldnotbeandisnot30liabilityforphysicallossinvolvingthesamesortofinterest.
Consideringthedifferencebetweencasesthatallowrecoveryforunavoidablefinanciallossandthosethatcomewithintheexclusionary(p.442) rule,theprinciplebarringrecoveryforeconomiclossmaybestatedasfollows:anactionfordamagesmustfailifitisnotgroundedinarightwhichisexclusiveasagainstthedefendant.Moreemphatically,theplaintiffsclaimmustnotrest,eveninpart,onaninterestthatisnotrootedinarightofthiskind.Toexplain,incasesofrelationaleconomiclossbarredbytheexclusionaryrule,theplaintiffsactionmaybeforthediminutioninvalueofanassetthatheowns,thelosshavingresultedfromthedefendantinjuringsomethingelsethatbelongstoathirdperson.Yet,ontheforegoinganalysis,theplaintiffshouldnotrecover,althoughthedefendanthasaffectedthevalueoftheplaintiffsownproperty,ifthemaintenanceofitsvaluedependsontheplaintiffshavingthecontinuinguseofthethingownedbythethirdperson.Whiletheplaintiffsclaimdependsmerelyinpartonhisassertingaprotectedinterest(intheuseofthethirdpartysthing)thatdoesnotrestonanexclusiverightasagainstthedefendant,thisisenoughtodisqualifytheaction.Fortheplaintifftohaveaprotectedinterestvis--visthedefendant,itmustbepossibletoanalyzethatinterestwhollyintermsofanexclusiverightagainsthim.
Anotherwayofarticulatingthereasonfordismissingtheplaintiffsactionistosaythatthelossoccursbecausetheplaintiffhasfreelydecidedtorelyontheavailabilityofsomethingfromwhichhecannotrightfullyexcludethedefendant,andthismustbeathisownrisk.
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 13 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
Ineffect,theplaintiffhaschosentomakethewell-beingofhispersonorproperty(financialaswellasphysical)dependentontheexistenceofcertaincontingentcircumstances(forexample,theavailabilityofsomethingforuse)whichthedefendantmayalteratwillwithoutviolatinganyrightintheplaintiffasagainsthim.Iflossresults,itwillbeimputedtotheplaintiffsownvoluntarychoicetorely,nottothedefendantconduct.Onthisanalysis,thenon-recoverabilityofeconomiclossillustratestheideathatpersonsarenotgenerallyresponsiblefortheconsequencesofothersindependentdecisionstorelyinthisway,atleastwherethoseconsequencesrepresentthematerializationofrisksthatwereentailedbysuchreliance.Thus,evenifitisperfectlyforeseeablethattherehasbeenandwillbesuchreliance,thisalonecannotmakeothersaccountable.Somethingmoreisrequired.WhatthisisIwillexplorelater,below.
Inthelightofthislastpoint,however,thefollowingobjectionmightberaisedagainstourpreviousanalysisofcasesofUnavoidablefinanciallosswhererecoveryisgranted.Whenaplaintiffdecidestousesomething(ownedbyathirdparty)insuchawaythatdamagetoitcanresultintheplaintiffsufferingunavoidablefinancialloss,itmaybecontendedthattheplaintiffhasalsoactedathisownriskandthatconsequentlythereshouldbenoliability.Toreferthisobjectiontotheearlierexample,onemightcontendthatbecausetheplaintifffreelychosetohookuphisrefrigeratortothethirdpartyspowersupply,hecannotreasonablyholdthedefendant(p.443) responsibleforcausingalossthathappenedonlybecausetheplaintiffdecidedtomakeuseofthethirdpartyselectricity.
Theshortanswertothisobjectionisthatthedefendantmustregulatehisconductonthebasis,first,thattheplaintiffwillmakeuseofthingswhichhemaynotown,therebybringinghimselforhispropertyintorelationwiththem;andsecondly,thatbydamagingthosethings,thedefendantcanundercertaincircumstancesforeseeablyinjuretheplaintifforhisproperty.Thismustbetakenasgivenwhendecidingwhichconsequencesaretobeimputedtothedefendantsconduct.Thereasonforthiscanbeexplainedasfollows.
Thefactthateveryindividualissomewhereandismakinguseofsomeexternalobjects,withtheresultthatheorhispropertyisputintorelationwiththemandissubjecttobeingaffectedbyconductthataffectsthem,isaninevitableincidentofbeingactiveintheworld.Thethoughthereisnotthatpersonsmayrequirecertainthingstomeettheirneedsortofulfiltheirpurposes.Arequirementofthissortwouldmaketheplaintiffsclaimintooneforthecontinueduseofsomething,whichcouldrunafoultheexclu-sionaryrule.Theideaisratherthis:asbeingswhoexistinspaceandtimeandwhoareinescapablyactiveandpurposive,31personsarenecessarilyandalwaysconnectedinmanifoldwayswithotherthingswhichtheycanaffectandwhichinturncanaffectthemaspartofacausalsequence.Morespecifically,asinescapablypurposivebeings,personsmustalwaysbesubjectingexternalthingstotheirpurposesinotherwords,theymustbemakinguseofthelatterinsomeway.Thisisalsoaninseparablefeatureoftheirbeingintheworld.
If,then,indecidingwhichconsequencesaretobeimputedtoadefendantsconduct,we
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 14 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
taketheplaintifftobeactingathisownriskwithrespecttoharmsthatresultfromdamagetosomethingelsewithwhichheisconnectedbysuchinevitableuse,weineffectsaytotheplaintiffthatotherscannotbeheldresponsibleforinjuringhimifthelossarisesthroughanecessaryandinseparableaspectofhisbeingapurposiveagentintheworld.Butthiswouldbetodenytheplaintiffsstandingasarights-holderwithrespecttotheverycapacity,namely,acapacityforpurposiveconduct,thatisusuallythoughttomarkhimoffasanaccountablebeingwhocanhaverightsandobligations.Thus,inassertingapurportedlibertytoinjureothersinthisway,thedefendantputsforwardaclaimthatisdirectlyincompatiblewiththeverybasisofright.Itisnolessproblematicthaniftheplaintiffweretoimputetothedefendantthewhollyunintendedand(p.444)unforeseeableconsequencesofhisactionsthatis,consequenceswhichthedefendantcouldnotpossiblyhavechosentoavoid.32
Thisanalysisappliestoourexample.There,thereaderwillrecall,theplaintiffsustainedfinanciallossasaresultofhisefforttoprotecthisproperty(hisfood)fromtheveryriskofharmcreatedbythedefendant(spoilage).Inclaimingcompensationfortheextrafeechargedfortheremovalofthefood,theplaintiff,wesaw,didnothavetoassertaninterestinthecontinuinguseofthethirdpartyselectricity.Tothecontrary,byremovinghisfood,hecanceledhisdependencyonit.Accordingly,thefactthathehappenedtobeusingtheelectricityatthetimeofthedefendantsnegligencerepresentsnothingmore(butalsonothingless)thantheuseofsomethingatagivenpointintime;thatis,itrepresentsaninevitableincidentofpurposiveconductandmustbetakenassomethinggivenbythedefendantindecidingwhatprecautionstoadoptinordertoavoidcausingtheplaintiffaloss.Wherethecircumstancesareotherwise,andtheplaintiffsclaiminvolvestheimplicitassertionofarighttothecontinueduseofsomethinginthefaceofthedefendantsrisk-imposingactivity,theuseisnolongerinevitableintherequiredsenseandsothisconclusiondoesnotfollow.
Thus,wemayprovisionallyconcludethatcasescomingwithintheexclusionaryrule,aswellasthoseallowingrecoveryforunavoidablefinancialloss,allseemtobeexplicableonthebasisofasimplefactornamely,whether,atthetimeofthedefendantswrong,theplaintiffsinterestiswhollygroundedinanexclusiverightasagainstthedefendant.Whatwemustnowdetermineiswhetherthisrequirementofanexclusiverightreflectsabasicunderlyingpremiseofourgeneralconceptionofliabilityfornegligenceand,ifso,preciselywhatitis.Forajustificationthataimstobeinternaltothelaw,adefiniteaffirmativeanswertothisquestionisessentialiftheproposedexplanationistogetofftheground.
III.TheExclusionaryRuleandNonfeasanceAnaccountthatseekstoremaininternaltothelawfaceshereaparticulardifficulty.Asarule,thecourtshavenotexplicitlyattemptedtorootthereasonforthenon-recoverabilityofeconomiclossinanunderlyingconceptionofnegligence.Whatwefindinsteadarestatementsthatsuchclaimsarenotoftherequisitekind,ordonotstatealosswhichthelawregardsasrecoverableorthatthereisnolegalauthoritytosupportsuchanaction(p.445) exceptonthepartofsomeonewithaproprietaryorpossessory
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 15 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
rightoftherequiredsort.33Indeed,intheveryfirstdecisionthatannouncedtheexclusionaryrule,thecaseofCattle,LordBlackburnjustifiedtheconclusionofnoliabilityonthegroundthat[n]oauthorityinfavouroftheplaintiffsrighttosuewascited,andasfarasourknowledgegoes,therewasnonethatcouldhavebeencited.34Suchrelianceonauthorityseemsonitsfacetobeproblematic.Ithink,nevertheless,thatweshouldresistthealltooeasytemptationtodismisstheseformulationsasnomorethanfailedattemptstojustifytheexclusionaryrule.Thereisanother,moreplausible,viewofthematter.
ItisimportanttorecallherethatsuchformulationsarefoundinlongandvirtuallyuninterruptedchainsofauthorityinboththeBritishCommonwealthandtheUnitedStatesthatconsistentlyupheldtheexclusionaryrulethroughouttheperiodofthedevelopmentofmodernnegligencedoctrine.Whatobstaclepreventedallthesecourtsoveraperiodofmorethanacenturyfromlimitingorevenabolishingoutrighttheexclusionaryrule,insteadofexpandingandgeneralizingitsapplicationastheydid?None,itissubmitted,exceptperhapsthis:courtsrejectedplaintiffsclaimsofthistypebecausetheyviewedtheseclaimsasfailingtomeet,andindeedasdirectlycollidingwith,aprerequisiteofliabilitywhichtheyalreadyregardedasbasicevenbeforethedevelopmentofageneralanddistinctconceptionofnegligenceinthiscentury.Thatcourtscontinuedtoadoptformulationsofthiskindtojustifytheexclusionaryruleevenwhiletheywereinitiatingfar-reachingtransformationsinnegligencelawisatleastconsistentwiththishypothesis.Thedifficulty,ofcourse,isthatforthemostpartthecourtsdidnotidentifythisprerequisitenorexplainitsrelationtothegeneralconceptionofliabilityfornegligencewhichtheywereelaborating.Sothehypothesiscannotbedefinitivelydemonstratedonewayoranother.Ontheotherhand,judicialrecoursetoauthorityispreciselythekindofjustificationthatinvitesfurtherexplication.Ifwecanidentifyafundamentalpremiseofliabilitywhichwas,andcontinuestobe,presupposedthroughoutthelawoftortsbutwhichisrarelyarticulatedinexplicitandabstractterms,andif,moreover,thereisaclosefitbetweenthispremiseandtheanalysisofliabilityintheeconomiclosscases,therewillbestronggroundsforsupposingthehypothesistobecorrect.Byexplainingjudicialrelianceonprecedentascongruentwithawidelyacceptedfeatureofourconceptionofliability,theanalysiscanremaininternaltothelawevenwhileitgoesbeyondthelawsexplicitformulationsintermsofauthority.Givenlimitsofspace,abriefdiscussionwillhavetosuffice.
(p.446) Itwasonlyinthiscenturythatthecommonlawelaboratedadistinctandgeneralconceptionofnegligenceonethatstilllargelyprevailstothisday.Accordingtothisconception,liabilityistobeanalyzedintermsofarelationofdutyandcorrelativerightbetweendefendantandplaintiff.35Incasesofnon-recoverableeconomicloss,wesawthattheplaintiffsinterestisnotgroundedinanexclusiverightagainstthedefendant.Giventheideaofthecorrelativityofrightandduty,wecanreformulatetheproblemwiththesecasesinthemorefamiliartermsofduty,asfollows:whatfeature,ifany,ofourgeneralconceptionofnegligenceprecludesadutyofcareinthesecircumstances?36
Certainly,itiswellestablishedthatingeneralanindividualcannotbeunderadutyof
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 16 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
caretowardanotherunlesshisactsoromissionsimposeariskofforeseeablelossontheother.Buttherequirementofforeseeabilitydoesnotexplainthenon-recoveryofeconomicloss.Forwhileforeseeabilitymaybenecessarytotheexistenceofadutyofcare,itisclearthatitisnotasufficientconditionthatthereisafurtherquitedistinctrequirementwhich,wewillsee,isconceptuallypriortoit.Aparticularlyexplicitandclearrecognitionofthisfurtherrequirementisfoundintheoften-citedspeechesoftheLawLordsinthecaseofHomeOfficev.DorsetYacht.37Take,forinstance,thisstatementofLordDiplock:
ThebranchofEnglishlawwhichdealswithcivilwrongsaboundswithinstancesofacts,and,moreparticularly,ofomissionswhichgiverisetonolegalliabilityinthedoeroromitterforlossordamagesustainedbyothersasaconsequenceoftheactoromission,howeverreasonablyorprobablythatlossordamagemighthavebeenanticipated.Examplescouldbemultiplied.Youmaycauselosstoatradesmanbywithdrawingyourcustomthoughthegoodswhichhesuppliesareentirelysatisfactory;youmaydamageyourneighbourslandbyinterceptingtheflowofpercolatingwatertoiteventhoughtheinterceptionisofnoadvantagetoyourself;youneednotwarnhimofariskofphysicaldangertowhichheisabouttoexposehimselfunlessthereissomespecialrelationshipbetweenthetwoofyousuchasthatof(p.447) occupieroflandandvisitor;youmaywatchyourneighboursgoodsbeingruinedbyathunderstormthoughtheslightesteffortonyourpartcouldprotectthemfromtherainandyoumaydosowithimpunityunlessthereissomespecialrelationshipbetweenyousuchasthatofbailorandbailee.38
Alltheseexamplesofnoliabilityshareacommonfeature:theplaintiffsclaimagainstthedefendantforlosssufferedasaresultofthelattersactoromissiondependsontheplaintiffassertinganinterestwhichisnotrecognizedbylaw.Moreprecisely,theplaintiffmustclaimarighttoexcludethedefendantfromusingsomethingwhichtheplaintiffneitherownsnorpossesses(viz.,theexamplesofwithdrawingonescustomandinterceptingtheflowofpercolatingwater);orhemustassertarighttocompelthedefendant.toprotecthispersonorpropertyfromrisksthatarewhollyindependentofthedefendantsconduct(viz.,thefailuretorescueexamples).Itisclearthattheunderlyingdifficultywitheachoftheseclaimsisthattheplaintiffcannotgroundtheminanotionofexclusiveownershiporright;thatis,inarighttoprohibitothersfromusingorinjuringwhatisonesownwithoutonesconsent.Inthefirstsetofexamples,theplaintiffdoesnotownorpossessthethingfromwhichhewishestoexcludethedefendant;inthesecond,theplaintiffseeks,nottopreventthedefendantfromusingorinjuringtheplaintiffsthing,buttoenlistthedefendantseffortstopreserveitagainstriskswhichhavearisenindependentlyofhisconduct.Bywayofexplainingtheselong-establishedandwidely-acceptedpropositionsoflaw,wereachthefollowingconclusion:absentaspecialrelationshipbetweentheparties,adutyofcarewillnotbeimpliedunlesstheplaintiffsclaimagainstthedefendantisrootedinapurelynegativerightofexclusiveownership.ThisconclusionrepresentsnothingotherthantheclassicdistinctionbetweenmisfeasanceandnonfeasanceofwhichBohlenwrotethat"[t]hereisnodistinctionmoredeeplyrooted
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 17 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
inthecommonlawandmorefundamental.39
Topreventmisunderstanding,itshouldbeemphasizedthatthedistinctionbetweenmisfeasanceandnonfeasanceisnot,andhasnevergenerallybeenviewedbythecourtsas,adifferencebetweenactsandomissions.Anomissionundercertaincircumstancesmayconstitutemisfeasance,justasanactinanothercontextmaybemerenonfeasance.Nordoesthedistinctionprovideanintelligiblebasisfortreatingdifferentlyphysicalandfinancialloss.Itgoesrathertotheformofrightinwhichtheplaintiffsclaimagainstthedefendantmustbeconceivedtobeactionable.Itmustbepossibletorootitinaclaimofexclusiveright,irrespectiveofwhetherthe(p.448) contentoftheentitlementisphysicalorfinancialinquality.Theplaintiffslossmustbeasubtractionfrom(orinjuryto)somethinginwhichtheplaintiffhasanexclusiverightsomethingwhichcountsastheplaintiffsownagainstthedefendant;but,atthesametime,theplaintiffmustnotclaimmorethanthispurelynegativeentitlementtoexcludethedefendant.Accordingly,thelawsometimesformulatesthisdistinctionasadifferencebetweencausinginjury(whichcangiverisetoliability)andwithholdingabenefit(whichcannot).
Theideaofmisfeasancestipulatesanessentialconditionthatmustbemetiftheplaintiffslossistobeactionableasaviolationofarightthatcanbecorrelativetoanothersdutytotakecare.Itisthefirststepinconceptualizinganinterestthatcanbetheobjectofadutyofcare.Andsinceitestablishestheexistenceofsomethingthatcanqualifyasalossforthepurposesofliability,itisconceptuallypriortothefurtherquestionofwhethertherehasbeenforeseeableloss.Thelawwillnotimplyadutyofcareunlessbothconditionsaresatisfied.
Thedistinctionbetweenmisfeasanceandnonfeasance,asIhavejustexplainedit,underliesthelawoftortsasawholeand,inparticular,ispresupposedinthelawofnuisance,40negligence,41andintentionalwrong.42Tosatisfytheprinciplethatthereisliabilityonlyformisfeasance,aplaintiffmustestablishthathehadtherequiredentitlement(againstwhichhislosswillbemeasured)attheverymomentatwhichthedefendantsdutyisallegedtohavearisen.Forexample,inanuisancecasesuchasFontainebleau,wheretheplaintiffslossstemsfromthedefendantsinterferencewiththefreeflowoflightfromadjoininglandtotheplaintiffspremises,thelawwillrequiretheplaintifftoestablishaproprietaryorpossessoryrighttothatflowonsomerecognizedlegalbasis.Failuretoestablishtherightwillresultinthecourtsrefusaltoimposeadutyonthedefendanttorefrainfromunreasonablyobstructingthepassageoflight,eventhoughthisdetrimentallyaffectstheplaintiffbydiminishingtheuseandvalueofhisownproperty.Similarly,incircumstancesofrelationaleconomiclosswherethelossflowsfromthedefendantimpairingtheplaintiffsuseofsomething,theplaintiffmustestablishonsomerecognizedlegalgroundsuchaseasement,demisecharter,bailment,andsoforththathe(p.449) hadaproprietaryorpossessoryrightinthatthing.43Thisisanecessaryprerequisitetoestablishingtheexistenceofarelationshipofproximitybetweenthepartiesthroughwhichadutyofcarearises.Thedutyisnotthesourceoftheproprietaryorpossessoryright.Onthecontrary,theexistenceofadutypresupposestheantecedentexistenceofthisentitlement.Thattheplaintiffsclaiminthenuisancecase
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 18 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
displaysthesamebasicfeaturesandinvolvesthesamedifficultyasdoclaimsforeconomiclossthatarebarredbytheexclusionaryrulebecomesclearonceweviewtheclaiminthelightofthedistinctionbetweenmisfeasanceandnonfeasance.Thesedecisionsarebutdifferentinstancesoftheoneprinciplethattherecanbenoliabilityfornonfeasance.
Bycontrast,incasesofunavoidablefinancialloss,claimsdonotgobeyondmisfeasance.Theplaintiff,wesaw,needonlyassertarightagainstthedefendantthathenotimpairorinjurewhatbelongstotheplaintiff,notarighttothecontinueduseofsomethingthatbelongstosomeoneelse.Suchclaimsdonotrest,then,eveninpart,onintereststhatarenotrootedinexclusiverights.
Thedistinctionbetweenmisfeasanceandnonfeasancehaslongbeentakenbythelawasafundamentalandfixedpointintheunderstandingofliability,bothwellbeforeandthroughoutthedevelopmentofnegligencedoctrineinthiscentury.44This,Isuggest,explainshowtheexclusionaryrulecouldhavebeenformulatedpriortothisperiodandwhyitwasmaintainedunchangedduringit.Moreover,withveryfewexceptions,courtshavenotarticulatedthisdistinctioningeneralandabstracttermsbutratherhaverecognizedit,withoutnamingorconceptualizingit,inthecontext,andthroughtheanalysis,ofparticulartypesofcircumstances.LordDiplocksdiscussionisagoodexampleofthis.45Thus,thefactthatthecourtshavenotexpresslystatedthataconcernovernonfeasanceisthebasisoftheexclusionaryruleisquiteconsistentwithusualpracticeanddoesnotinitselfcountagainsttheproposedexplanation.Still,onemightwonderwhetherthereareanyjudicialopinionsthatexplicitlyjustifytheexclusionaryruleoilthisground.Tomyknowledge,therehavebeenatleasttwothejudgmentofCardozoCJinH.R.MochCo.v.RensselaerWaterCo.46and,morerecently,theconcurringopinions(p.450) ofLushandMurphyJJoftheSupremeCourtofVictoriainSealev.Perry.47
IV.TheFitWithDetrimentalRelianceandwithIntentionalInterferenceWithContractToconcludetheessay,Iwillbrieflyexplainhowthisproposedjustificationfortheexclusionaryrulefitstogetherwiththeanalysisofliabilityincasesofjustifieddetrimentalrelianceandintentionalinterferencewithcontract,thelastofthenon-exclusionarysituationsofeconomiclossthatremaintobediscussed.
A.JustifiedDetrimentalRelianceItisnowfirmlyestablishedthatwherethereexistsaso-calledspecialrelationshipbetweentheparties,therecanberecoveryfornegligentlycausedfinancialloss.Thedecisionsthatfirstupheldandarticulatedthisbasisofliabilityresteditontheplaintiffsjustifieddetrimentalrelianceonthedefendant.48Tomakeasuccessfulclaim,aplaintiffmusthavechangedhispositiontohisdetrimentasaresultoftheexpressorimpliedinducementbythedefendant.Bywayofillustration,consideranexampleofreliancein(p.451) circumstancesofrelationaleconomicloss.Attheinvitationofthedefendant,theplaintiffdecidestousethedefendants(orathirdpartys)bridgeforhisbusinesspurposes.Inmakingthisdecision,theplaintiffforeseeablyabandonsordoesnot
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 19 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
undertakeacourseofactionwhichwouldnothavesubjectedhimtotheeconomiclossthathewillsufferifhisuseofthebridgeisdisrupted.Duetothedefendantswantofreasonablecare,thebridgeisdamaged,impairingtheplaintiffsuseofitandcausinghimfinancialloss.Inprinciple,therecanberecovery.
Inwhatcircumstanceswillthelawdeemthattheplaintiffhasjustifiablyreliedonthedefendanttohisdetriment?First,thedefendantmustinvitetheplaintifftorely.Itisonlythroughhisvoluntaryconductthatthedefendantcanbringhimselfintoaspecialrelationshipwiththeplaintiffwherebyhebecomesresponsiblefortheconsequencesoftheplaintiffsdecisiontorely.Morespecifically,itmustbereasonablefortheplaintifftoviewthedefendantashaving,bywordordeed,invitedhimtorelyonthedefendantforthereceiptofsomeadvantagewhetheraservice,athing,orastateofaffairs.Inresponsetothisinvitationtorely,theplaintiff,wesuppose,decidestogiveupsomeprospectiveorpresentbenefitbyabandoningaprojectedcourseofactionorbyalteringhiscircumstancesinsomedefiniteway.Thisdecisiontoforegothebenefitmayhavebeenexpresslyencouragedbythedefendantoritmaysimplyhavebeentheforeseeableconsequenceofthedefendantsinvitationtorely.Bygivingupthebenefit,theplaintiffexposeshimselftoariskofloss,buthedoesthisbecauseheexpectstoobtaintheadvantageheldouttohimbythedefendant.Theplaintiffsdecisiontorelyonthedefendantisthusbothreasonableandrational.Inthesecircumstances,thelawwillholdthatthereexistsaspecialrelationshipbetweenthepartiesandthatthedefendantmustexercisereasonablecareeitherinprovidingtheadvantageinkeepingwiththerepresentationoratleastinenablingtheplaintifftotakeupagainhisabandonedcourseofactionorhispreviousstateofaffairswithoutloss.Inanactionfornegligence,thepriorsituationwhichtheplaintiffhasgivenupwillbetakenasthebaselineformeasuringrecoverableloss.(Bycontrast,ifthereisavalidcontractbetweentheparties,theadvantagewhichthedefendanthasheldouttoinducetheplaintiffschangeofpositioncanbetakenasthebaselineinanactionforbreachofcontract.)Tortlawtreatsthepriorpositionasaprotectedinterest,thevalueofwhichcannotbediminishedthroughthedefendantsnegligence.
Thequestionwhichnowpresentsitselfisasfollows:doestheconclusionofpossibleliabilityincircumstancesofjustifieddetrimentalreliancefitwiththeproposedjustificationfortheexclusionaryrule?Toansweritaffirmatively,wemustshowthatrecoveryinsuchcasesdoesnotrepresenttheimpositionofliabilityfornonfeasance.
Thattheremaybeafitbetweenthetwoisinitiallysuggestedbythe(p.452) followingpoint.Incasesofeconomicloss(relationalorotherwise),theexclusionaryruleisappliedsubjecttotheprovisothatthelossdidnotresultfromjustifieddetrimentalreliancebytheplaintiffonthedefendant.49Buttheexclusionaryrule,Ihaveargued,illustratestheideathatthereisnoliabilityfornonfeasance.Henceitisnoteworthythat,intheexcerptfromDorsetYachtcitedearlier,LordDiplockexpresslyconditionstheconclusionofnoliabilityinavarietyofcircumstancesofnonfeasanceontheabsenceofaspecialrelationshipbetweentheparties.50Theparallelisstriking,anditseemsonitsfacetosupporttheproposedjustification.Toseewhetherthisisindeedso,letusreturntothe
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 20 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
caseofrelianceincircumstancesofrelationaleconomiclossandidentifythedifference,ifany,betweenitandthosecasesthatcomewithintheexclusionaryrule.
Tomakeouthisclaimforlossincircumstancesofreliance,theplaintiffneednotassertarighttothecontinueduseofthething(thebridge,inourexample)onwhichhedependsbutwhichheneitherownsnorpossesses.Rather,theessenceofhisactionisthatthedefendantcausedhimafinanciallossbeforehewasabletoregainthepositionwhichheforeseeablyandreasonablygaveupatthedefendantsinducement.Theonlyrightthattheplaintiffisassertingisarighttoreturntohispreviouspositionwithoutsufferingloss,giventhatthedefendanthasnotactedwithduecare.Thefactthattheplaintiffdependsontheuseofsomethingwhichheneitherownsnorpossessesmerelyestablishesthecircumstancesinwhichhecanbemadeworseoffrelativetohispre-relianceposition.Theplaintiffscomplaintisnotthathehaslostthebenefitofsuchusebutthathehasbeenputinaworsepositionincomparisontohispriorsituation:theplaintiffwantstobereturnedtohisinitialposition,thatis,tobefreefromtherelationofdependence.Thus,incontrasttothecasesofeconomiclossthatcomeundertheexclusionaryrule,theplaintiffheredoesnotassert,eveninpart,arightagainstthedefendanttothecontinueduseofsomethingthatbelongstoanother.Andwhiletheplaintiffsdependence,beingtheconsequenceofhisdecisiontorely,cannotbeviewedasaninevitableincidentofpurposiveactivity(asitisinthecasesofunavoidableeconomicloss),itshouldnonethelessbeimputedtothedefendantratherthantotheplaintiffasamatteroffairness.Itwouldbeunreasonabletoallowthedefendanttodisownconsequencesforeseeablyflowingfromhisvoluntaryinvitationtorelyandfromhisfailuretouseduecare.51Thisisincontrasttothe(p.453) exclusionarysituationswhere,Iargued,theplaintiffisreasonablyviewedashavingactedathisownriskinmakinghisinterestsdependentontheavailabilityofsomethingelsewhichheneitherownsnorpossesses.Insum,thereseemstobenocontradictionbetweenthepossibilityofliabilityincircumstancesofjustifieddetrimentalrelianceandtheexclusionaryrule.52Unlikeactionsbarredbytheexclusionaryrule,theplaintiffsclaimhereseemstofallsquarelywithintheboundsofmisfeasance.
Againstthisconclusionhowever,thefollowingimportantobjectioncanberaised.Inallcasesofactionablejustifiedreliance,theplaintiffaltersandindeedmusthavealteredhispositionasaresultofthedefendantsinducement:inrelianceonthedefendantsrepresentations,theplaintiffeithergivesupanactualpresentadvantageorforgoesthepursuitofapossiblefutureadvantage.Ineithersituation,then,theplaintiffdoesnotactuallyhaveorenjoythisadvantageatthemomentofthedefendantsnegligence.Itmaynotevenbewithinhisactualpowertodoso.Andhecertainlydoesnotlegallypossessorownit.Wesawthatthelawtreatstheadvantage,whethergivenuporsimplynotpursued,assettingthebaselinefordeterminingtheexistenceofrecoverablelossandviewsitineffectasaprotectedinterest,thevalueofwhichspecifiestheplaintiffsentitlementvis--visthedefendant.Thisseemstoentailtheimpositionofliabilityfornonfeasance.Yetthisisnotthecase.
Toseewhynot,itisimportant,first,torecallthemainideathatliabilityformisfeasanceis
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 21 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
premisedontheexistenceofanexclusiverightintheplaintiffasagainstthedefendant.Propertyorpossessoryrights,beinginprincipleexclusiverightsagainsttheworld,arealsorightsagainstthedefendant.Bycontrast,acontractright,asIshallshortlydiscuss,isincontemplationoflawapersonalrightasbetweentwopartieswhichiscreatedbytheircombinedactsofofferandacceptance(assumingtheotherrequirementsforcontractformationaremet).Theideaofanexclusiverightisthusnotexhaustedbyrightsofpropertyorpossession.Inaddition,contractmakesexplicitthatanexclusiverightbetweentwopartiesmaybeestablishedinandthroughtheirinteractionfairlyinterpreted.AsIwillnowexplain,thisisalsotrueofinteractionsinvolvinginduceddetrimentalreliance.
Thedefendant,wesuppose,hasinvitedtheplaintifftorelyonhim,fore-seeablyinducingtheplaintifftogiveuportoforgopursuinganadvantageforthesakeofthebenefitheldout.Theplaintiff,wealsoassume,isabletoshowthathewouldinfacthavekeptorobtainedtheadvantagehadhenotreliedonthedefendantsrepresentations.Incontemplationoflaw,theadvantage,thoughinfactgivenupornotpursued,isviewedassomethingthatcouldandwouldhavebeentheplaintiffsatthemomentofthe(p.454)defendantswrongbutforhisdecisiontorely.Nowthatdecisionwasitselfjustareasonableresponsetothedefendantsinvitationtorely,withitsholdingoutofaprospectivebenefit.Seeingthatitwasthedefendantwhoinvitedtheplaintiffsreliance,itwouldbeunfairforhimtoimputetotheplaintiffsowndecisionthefactthattheplaintiffdidnothavetheadvantage(becausegivenupornotpursued)atthemomentofthewrong.Asafairimplicationofhisvoluntaryactofinvitingreliance,thedefendantshouldthereforebeestoppedfromdenyingthefollowingtwostateofaffairs:first,thattheplaintiffhadtheeffectivepresentpowertokeeportoobtaintheadvantageatthemomentofthedefendantswrong;andsecondly,thattheplaintiffrefrainedfromexercisingthispoweronlyoncon-ditionthatthedefendantactedwithduecare.Thesetwostatesofaffairs,throughnotactuallyexistent,neverthelesscountasfactsasbetweentheparties.Takentogetherincircumstancesofthedefendantsfailuretouseduecare,theyimplyonthepartofthedefendantavoluntaryandbindingacknowledgementthattheplaintiffhadanexclusiveactualpowertohaveandtoenjoythatis,arighttotheadvantageatthemomentofthedefendantswrongdespitetheplaintiffhavinggivenitupornotpursuedit.Thisacknowledgementofrightisimputedtothedefendantasfairlyimpliedbyhisvoluntaryconducttowardtheplaintiff.Hencetheconclusionthattheadvantageshouldandcancountasaprotectedinterestagainstthedefendantforthepurposesoftortlaw.
Inreachingthisconclusion,itmustbeemphasizedthatwedonotholdthattheplaintiffhasactuallyacquiredlegalownershiporpossessionoftheadvantageandsosomethingthatcancountasarightagainsttheworld.Nosuchacquisitionhasoccurred.Rather,giventhedefendantsinvitationtorely,thedefendantisestoppedfromdenyingthattheplaintiffhasanexclusivepowertohaveandtoenjoytheadvantageatthemomentthedefendantfailstoexerciseduecare.Thedeterminationandthejustificationoftheplaintiffsentitlementinreliancecasesarethusstrictlyinternaltoananalysisofthefairrequirementsgoverningthedefendantsconductwithrespecttotheplaintiff.Theadvantagecountsasaprotectedinterestbecauseandonlyinsofarasthisisa
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 22 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
reasonableimplicationoftheestoppelanalysis.Itfiguresasakindofquasi-propertyjustasbetweenthesetwoparties,giventhespecificnatureoftheirinteraction.53Inthisway,therequirementformisfeasanceismet.
(p.455) B.IntentionalInterferencewithContractTheproposedjustificationfortheexclusionaryruleholds,Ihavesaid,thattheplaintiffwillfailunlesshisinterestisgroundedinanexclusiverightasagainstthedefendantAbsentaspecialrelationshiporacontractbetweentheplaintiffanddefendant,thelawrequiresthattheplaintiffhaveaproprietaryorpossessoryright.Amerecontractrightagainstapersonotherthanthedefendantisdeemedinsufficienttoestablishliabilityfornegligentlycausedeconomicloss.Theproposedjustificationfortheexclusionaryrulewillbeconsistentwiththislegalconclusionif,butonlyif,incontemplationoflawaplaintiffscontractrightagainstoneperson(athirdparty)doesnotinitselfgivetheplaintiffanexclusiverightagainstsomeotherperson(suchasthedefendant).Untilnow,Ihavesimplysupposedthistobethecase.Imustnowshowthatthisisindeedsoandindicatetheconceptionofcontractthatunderliesthisconclusion.Iwillalsosuggestwhythisanalysisisconsistentwiththefactthatcontractrightsagainstthirdpersonsaretreatedasprotectedinterestsinactionsforintentional,asopposedtonegligent,interferencewithcontract.
Themoderncommonlawviewscontractasentailing,inCorbinswords,aspecialrightinpersonam,arightinthepromiseeagainstthepromisor,withthecorrelativespecialdutyinthepromisortothepromiseeofrenderingtheperformancepromised.54Thisviewholds,first,thatthepromiseesexclusiverightistotheperformanceofapromise,nottothethingitselfthathasbeenpromised;andsecondly,thatitisonlyarightasagainsttheperson(s)whohavepromised,nottheworldatlarge.Theonlynecessaryand,asitwere,inherentjuridicaleffectofabindingcontractisthatthepromisorisnolongerfreetodeprivethepromiseeofthepromisedperformancewithouthisconsent.Accordingly,althoughacontractmaygivemearighttotheperformanceofyourpromise,say,todeliverahorsetome,itdoesnotconferonmearighttothehorseitself.IacquirethatrightonlywhenIamputinphysicalpossessionofthehorsethroughdelivery.Ithen,andonlythen,acquireapropertyrightinthehorseora(p.456) rightinrem,andthusarighttoexcludethepromisorandothersfromusingthehorsewithoutmyconsent.Inthisway,acontractualrightisfundamentallydifferentfromarightinremcreatedbyexecutedtransactionsorbyanyotherconveyanceofpropertypureandsimple.
Incasesofnegligentlycausedeconomiclossthatarebarredbytheexclusionaryrule,thedefendantdamagesorappropriatessomethinginwhichtheplaintiffmayhaveacontractualinterest,therebyaffectingthatinterestwithout,however,havinganyintentiontoinjuretheplaintiffscontractualright.Giventhepurelyunintentionalnatureofthedefendantsactatleastwithrespecttotheplaintiffsinterest,theonlyfactthatcanbeimputedtothedefendantinrelationtotheplaintiffishisimpingementontheexistence,condition,oravailabilityofthethingitself(includingtheconse-quencesthereof)andhisonlyresponsibilityisforviolationsoftheplaintiffsrightsthatresultfromthisfact.Butthisimpingementdoesnotinfringeanyoftheplaintiffsrightsagainstthedefendantbecause
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 23 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
theplaintiff,havingbyhypothesismerelyacontractualrightagainstathirdperson,isentitledjusttothelattersperformance,nottothethingitself.Accordingly,thedefendantsunintentionalinterferencewiththeplaintiffscontractualinterestcannotconstituteawrongagainsthim.Atmost,itmayleadtoabreachofcontractbythethirdpersonortothefrustrationoftheircontractifperformanceisrenderedimpossible.Onthisanalysis,then,thecommonlawviewregardingtheinsufficiencyofcontractualinterests(andofcourseofotherintereststhatarelessthancontractrights,suchasmereliberties)isjustified.Butifthisisso,onwhatbasiscanthelawtreatsuchcontractualrightsasprotectedinterestswhichbothcourtsandscholarsoftencharacterizeasquasi-propertyincasesofintentionalinterferencewithcontract?
Acluemaybefoundinthefactthat,inthecontextofassignment,thelawviewsacontractualrightasaquasi-propertyright.55Thereasonforthisisclear.Astheobjectofanassignment,thecontractualrightitselfasdistinguishedfromthething,istreatedbyathirdpartyassomethingthatmaybeacquiredasavaluableasset,butonlywiththeconsentoftheoneinwhomitisvested.Viewedinthiscontext,acontractualrightfunctionsnodifferentlyfromanypropertyright.Thesolequalificationthatmustbemadehereisthatinitsroleasapropertyinterest,therightisexclusiveasagainsttheassigneeonly,nottheworldingeneral.Itisproprietaryasbetweentheminvirtueoftheassigneesintention,asmanifestedinhisinteractionwiththeassignor,totreatthecontractrightinthisway.Now,sinceacontractrightcanbedeemedtobeapropertyinterestwhenitistheobjectofavoluntarytransactionofassignment,itmustalsobethecasethatitcanfunctioninthiswayinaninvoluntarytransaction,whenadefendant(p.457) (astrangertothecontract)expresslyorimplicitlytreatstherightasavaluableassetwhichhecanuse,appropriate,orinjurewithouttheright-holdersconsent.Whethertherehasbeenawrongfultakingoforinjurytothecontractrightviewedasaquasi-propertyinterestwillcruciallydependonthedefendanthavingthenecessaryintention.Butthisiswhatthelawrequiresincasesofintentionalinterferencewithcontract.Theremustbemaliceorsomefairlyspecificintentionthatisdirectedatthecontractrightitselfandthatimplicitlyregardsitasavaluableasset.56Theplaintiffscontractrightagainsttheothercontractingpartycountsthereforeasanentitlementagainstthedefendantbecausethisisafairandreasonableimplicationofthedefendantsactandofthespecifickindofinteractionthathastakenplacebetweentheplaintiffanddefendant.This,Isuggested,isalsotrueofinteractioninvolvinginduceddetrimentalreliance.Onthisbasis,weaccount,then,forthedifferentsignificanceofcontractrightsinintentionalandunintentionaltort.Herealsothedifferentpartsofthelawrespectingeconomiclossfittogether.57
V.ConclusionMyprincipalaiminthischapterhasbeentosuggestadefiniteanswertothequestionoftortliabilityforeconomiclossasthisarisesinthemainpartsofthelaw.Throughaninternalanalysisoftheverycategoriesanddistinctionsthatarepresentinthecaselaw,Ihavetriedtoshowthattheexclusionaryrulerestsonasimpleandprincipledbasis,namelythatactionswhichcomeunderthisruleinvolveclaimssoundinginnonfeasance,forwhich,inaccordancewiththegeneralconceptionofnegligenceatcommonlaw,there
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 24 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
cannotbeliability.Withthisanswerinhand,Ihavearguedthatthedifferentpartsofthelawrespectingeconomiclossfittogether.Atleastinthecaseofliabilityforeconomicloss,tortlawdisplaysafundamentalunity.
Thelegalprinciplethatthereisnoliabilityfornonfeasancearticulatesaseverelylimitedideaofresponsibilitytowardothers:individualsmustonlynotinjurewhatalreadybelongstoothers;protectedinterestsaredefinedintermsofwhatothershave(suum),notwhattheyneedorwant.Andsince(p.458) thedutiesowedtoothersinthelawofnegligencemustbeframedinsuchawaythattheycanbebroughtundermisfeasance,thisrestrictednotionofresponsibilityseemstospecifyanorganizingnormativeprinciplefortortlaw.
Theanalysisundertakeninthisessayis,Ibelieve,theoreticallysignificantintworespects.First,itgivesusreasontothinkthatthelawalreadycontainswithinitselftheideasandtheprincipleswithwhichtoconstructapublicjustificationofthebasisandthelimitsoftheexclusionaryrule.Wemightnothaveexpectedthisconclusioninadvance,givenseriousandincreasingdisagreementamongcontemporaryjuristsandscholarsastotheproperresolutionofthisquestion.Togetbeyondpresentdisagreementaboutthepar-ticularquestionofeconomicloss,thefirststepwouldseemtorequirethatwerootthejustificationinanideaorsetofideaswhichisbasictothegeneralconceptionofnegligenceandwhichwethereforetake,atleastprovisionally,asafixedpointinourunderstandingofthelaw.ThisiswhatIhavetriedtodo.
Secondly,if,asIhavesuggested,thelawofeconomiclosspresentsuswithapublicjuridicalpointofviewthatisframedintermsofthedistinctionbetweenmisfeasanceandnonfeasance,thisprovidesuswithasuitablestartingpointforfurthertheoreticalreflection.Allreflectionmustbeginwithanobjectgiventoit.Theoreticalreflectionaboutlawpresupposesanobjectthatembodiesalegalpointofview.Thefirsttaskoftheory,then,istouncoverandtoidentifyclearlysuchanobject.Atheorythatfailstobegininthiswaycondemnsitselftobeingirrelevantasatheoryoflaw.Whateverelseitsobjectofcognitionmaybe,itwillnotbetortlaw.Thisisthebasicdifficultywiththeprevailingeconomicapproachestotheexclusionaryrule,brieflydiscussedintheIntroduction.Theiranalysesandconclusions,howeverfullyandrigorouslyworkedout,arenotexplanationsoftortlaw,andtheirprescriptionscannotbeonesthattortlawisobligedtorecognize.Ifpresentdisagreementaboutthebasisandthelimitsoftheexclusionaryrulechallengesthepossibilityofapublicbasisofjustification,prevailingtheoreticalapproachesthreatentodeprivelegaltheoryofanobjectforcognition.Thefundamentalandpervasivedistinctionwhichtortlawdrawsbetweenmisfeasanceandnonfeasancesuppliesuswithone.Thefurthertaskoftheorywouldbethecriticalyetimmanentexaminationoftheobjectspresuppositionsanditsentailments.Butthisisbeyondthescopeofthepresentessay.58
Notes:(1)Gasescommonlytreatedascomingunderthisfirstcategoryincludethefollowingtypesofcircumstances:Cattlev.StocktonWaterworksCo.[187480]AllE.R.220(Q.B.)
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 25 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
(plaintiffcontractormustincuradditionalexpensestocompleteperformanceofhiscontractualobligationsonlandownedbyothercontractingpartybecauseofdamagecausedtoitbydefendantsnegligence);LaSocitAnonymedeRemorquageHlicev.Bennetts[1911]1K.B.243(plaintifftugownerlosesremunerationundertowagecontractwhenunabletocompletetowageofshipwhenlatterissunkenroutethroughdefendantsnegligence);Byrdv.English,43S.E.419(Ga.1903)(plaintiffsustainsfinanciallosswhenunabletooperatehisplantasaconsequenceofdefendantsnegligentinterferencewithsupplyofelectricityprovidedbythirdpersonundercontractwithplaintiff);CandlewoodNavigationCorp.v.MitsuiO.S.K.LinesLtd.[1986]A.C.1(appealtakenfromN.S.W.)(plaintifftime-chartererclaimsforwastedhirepaidundercontracttoownerofvesselandforprofitslostwhilevesselhadtobedockedforrepairscausedbydefendantsnegligence);Leigh&SillavanLtd.v.AliakmonShippingCo.[1986]A.C.785(plaintiffbuyersustainsfinanciallossasresultofdefendantdamaginggoodsatatimewhenrisk,butnotthepropertyinthegoods,haspassedtoplaintiff).
(2)See,e.g.,Murphyv.BrentwoodDist.Council[1990]2AllE.R.908(H.L.);EastRiverS.S.Corp.v.TransamericaDelavalInc.,476U.S.858(1986);cf.SutherlandShireCouncilv.Heyman(1985)60A.L.R.1(Austl.).TheSupremeCourtofCanada,however,hasrecentlycometoacontraryconclusion.SeeWinnipegCondominiumCorp.No.36v.BirdConstr.Co.,121D.L.R.4th193(Can.1995)
(3)Examplesare:Newlinv.NewEnglandTel.&Tel.Co.,54N.E.2d929(Mass.1944);SpartanSteel&AlloysLtd.v.Martin&Co.[1972]3AllE.R.557(Eng.C.A.);andMuirheadv.Indus.TankLtd.[1986]1Q.B.507(Eng.C.A.).IhaveinmindhereRESTATEMENT(SECOND)OFTORTS(1977),766Ccmt.b,ilhis.5.
(4)Forexample,Glanzerv.Shepard,135N.E.275(N.Y.1922);HedleyByrne&Co.v.Heller&PartnersLtd.[1964]A.C.465.Thisbasisofliabilityisrecognizedregularlyindecisionswheretheexclusionaryruleisstrictlyapplied.SeeforinstanceMurphy[1990]2AllE.R.at920,perLordKeith,at92930,perLordBridge,andat934,perLordOliver.Idiscussjus-tifieddetrimentalrelianceatinfra,textaccompanyingnotes4853.
(5)EversinceLumleyv.Gye,2E.&B.216(1853).
(6)See,forinstance,discussionsandcasescitedinW.PAGEKEBTON,DANB.DOBBS,ROBERTE.KEETON,&DAVIDG.OWEN,PROSSERANDKEETONONTHELAWOFTORTS(5thedn.,1984),981.Idiscussintentionalinterferencewithcontractatinfra,textaccompanyingnotes547.
(7)FlemingJames,Jr.,LimitationsonLiabilityforEconomicLossCausedbyNegligence:APragmaticAppraisal,25VAND.L.REV.43(1972).RecentEnglishandCommonwealthjudicialexamplesofthisviewinclude:ElectrochromeLtd.v.WelshPlasticsLtd.[1968]2AllE.R.205,208(GlamorganAssizes)(GeoffreyLaneJ);Leigh&SillavanLtd.v.AliakmonShippingCo.[1986]A.C.785,81617;CandlewoodNavigationCorp.v.MitsuiO.S.K.LinesLtd.[1986]A.C.1,25;andNorskPac.S.S.Co.v.CanadianNatlR.R.[1992]1S.C.R.1021,1054ff.(Can.)(LaForestJ).
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 26 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
(8)Annsv.MertonLondonBoroughCouncil[1977]2AllE.R.492(H.L.)wasoverruledinMurphyv.BrentwoodDist.Council[1990]2AllE.R.908(H.L.).ForadifferentinterpretationofAnns,seetheinterestingremarksofLordOliverinAliakmon[1985]2AllE.R.at568.
(9)Foranexceptiontothesepolicy-basedapproaches,seeStephenPerry,ProtectedInterestsandUndertakingsintheLawofNegligence,42U.TORONTOL.J.247(1992).LimitsofspaceprecludediscussionofPerrysview,whichisdifferentfromtheexplanationproposedhere,butIhopetodosoinaplannedexpandedversionofthepresentchapter.
(10)E.g.,W.Bishop,EconomicLossinTort,2OXFORDJ.LEGALSTUD.1(1982).Bishopdismissesthelegalrequirementofaproprietaryorpossessoryrightaseconomicallyarbitrary:[t]hefactthattheplaintiffdoesnotownpropertythathassufferedphysicaldamageiseconomicallyirrelevant,asisthefactthathislossarisesbywayofcontract:id.at25.SeealsoP.P.Craig,NegligentMisstatements,NegligentActsandEconomicLoss,92L.Q.R.212,234(1976);RICHARDA.POSNER,TORTLAW:CASESANDECONOMICANALYSIS(1982),4646.
(11)E.g.,MarioJ.Rizzo,ATheoryofEconomicLossintheLawofTorts,11J.LEGALSTUD.281(1982).Rizzoascribesdecisiveeconomicimportancetowhetherachannellingcontractexistedorcouldhaveexistedbetweentheplaintiff(whosufferedrelationaleconomicloss)andathirdperson(whosufferedinjurytopersonorproperty)underwhichthelattercouldhavebeenobligedtoindemnifytheformerforhiseconomicloss.MydifficultywiththiscontentionisthatRizzodoesnot,inmyview,showthatanyleadingdecisionmakesthis,whetherexplic-itlyorbynecessaryimplication,thereasonedbasisofitsconclusion.Forasimilarcriticism,seeRobertL.Rabin,TortRecoveryforNegligentlyInflictedEconomicLoss:AReassessment,37STAN.L.REV.1513,1535(1985).
(12)ThisreferencetocertainfeaturesofapublicjustificationdrawsonthemuchmoredevelopedaccountpresentedbyRawls.SeeJohnRawls,JusticeasFairness:ABrieferRestatement(1990)(unpublishedmanuscript,onfilewithauthor);JOHNRAWLS,POLITICALLIBERALISM(1993).
(13)IaddressthesequestionsinPeterBenson,TheBasisofCorrectiveJusticeanditsRelationtoDistributiveJustice,77IOWAL.REV.515(1992).
(14)James,supra,note7,at47.
(15)RobinsDryDock&RepairCo.v.Flint,275U.S.303(1927).
(16)Simpson&Co.v.Thomson[1877]3A.C.279,28990(appealtakenfromScot.).
(17)Weller&Co.v.Foot&MouthDiseaseResearchInst.[1965]3AllE.R,560,563(Q.B.).
(18)Id.
The Basis for Excluding Liability for Economic Loss in Tort Law
Page 27 of 31
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
(19)OneearlyAmericancasethatdoessoisConnecticutMut.LifeIns.Co.v.NewYork&NewHavenR.R.,25Conn.265,275(1856).ItmightbethoughtthatthelandmarkcaseofCattlev.StocktonWaterworksCo.[187480]AllE.R.220(Q.B.),orthewidely-citeddecisionofCardozoCJinUltramaresCorp.v.Touche,174N.E.441(N.Y.1931),arefurtherexamples.Thisview,Ibelieve,ismistaken.Here,afewbriefremarkswi
Top Related