Principle In New York when there is no physical or property damage then no

Principle in new york when there is no physical or

This preview shows page 21 - 23 out of 41 pages.

Principle: In New York, when there is no physical or property damage, then no liability . --Must draw line somewhere—don’t want “limitless ripple effect liability” --Crushing Liability concern --Rabin: Not proper place for tort law. Can’t always get recourse in tort law. Maybe here we should have government subsidized business stoppage insurance, or a federal disaster zone, or subsidized loans or relief. But not necessarily torts. --Don’t use tort blinders. Raises questions for all areas of government Dunlop Tire v. FMC Corp/Beck v. FMC . (p. 320) Facts: Explosion at FMC explosion directly damaged dunlop, and also caused electrical outage miles away at Chevy dealer where Beck worked. Principle: Dunlop recovers for all economic loss because it suffered physical contact And once that’s established, all else is recovered for, including damages from power outage. But Beck Π gets nothing because there was no physical harm. Contrast With: People Express Airlines v. Consolidated Rail Corp. --In New Jersey, when a chemical plant spilled across from terminal and fears of explosion shut down airport, People’s Express was able to recover even though it wasn’t damaged. Theory: more particular the foreseeability that economic loss would be suffered as a result of negligence, the more just that liability be imposed. --NY far extreme from NJ. --This means no recovery for thousands of NY businesses on 911. Duncan v. Afton (p. 315, Note 8)-- was hired to do drug tests and negligently reports to employer that Π tested positive. Court imposes duty of due care because knew that its actions would affect the group of workers being tested. - -Policy: no concern about limitless liability here; # of individuals limited --Other courts go other ways --From incentives, fairness, and compensation perspectives, its the right outcome Rickards v. Sun Oil (p. 323) Barges knocks out bridge and access to Π ’s business, but recovery barred because liability disproportionate to negligence committed . Economists on Econ. Recovery: No net loss to society—people go to another motel or business—so therefore no reason for recovery 21
Image of page 21
--But forgets sense of fairness Robins Dry Docks & Repair Co. v. Flint (p. 322) Facts: Boat was not repaired well. Owner chartered it to someone, who sued repair man. Justice Holmes: No duty owed to charteree, because no contractual relationship. Chareteree should so the owner to recover, who in turn can implead the repairman. Sum up on Economic and Emotional Distress Cases: --Disproportionality problem. Whatever the harms, they very from Π to Π ; they’re hard to calculate, and the level of negligence involved may not be proportional to what catastrophic results were caused --think about the ripple effects of incidental harms that might be caused by negligent driving. --In 522 Madison there was a ripple effect issue: all hot dog vendors, etc.
Image of page 22
Image of page 23

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture