Vanderbilt Law Review

First Page



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.