the basis for excluding liability for economic loss in tort law
DESCRIPTION
La exclusión de responsabilidad por pérdida económicaTRANSCRIPT
-
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