Limitations on Liability for Economic Loss Caused by Negligence: A Pragmatic Appraisal
James, Jr., Fleming
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this journal article
Most recently cited by3
- 2015National Roofing, Inc. v. Alstate Steel, Inc. N.M. Ct. App.
- 2015Susan England v. Janice Kolbe, as Guardian of the Estate of Edna Moon Tex. App.
- 1980Ollerman v. O'Rourke Co. Wis.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
Even if liability for indirect economic consequences of negligence may in some cases be too broad and open-ended to be endured, care should be taken to see whether that is true in all types of situations; if it is not true, one must examine whether a rule may be fashioned to separate the wheat from the chaff. In this discussion it has been assumed that if the pragmatic consideration has any validity, it is in the field of indirect economic loss rather than that of physical damage. As one commentator put it, "only a limited amount of physical damage can ever ensue from a single act, while the number of economic interests a tort feasor may destroy in a brief moment of carelessness is practically limitless.' There may be a good deal of truth in this statement, but surely it is an oversimplification.