Aikens v. Debow
541 S.E.2d 576 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who sustains purely economic loss from an interruption in commerce caused by another's negligence may not recover damages in the absence of: 1) physical harm to that individual’s person or property; 2) a contractual relationship with the alleged tortfeasor; or 3) some other special relationship between the parties.
Facts:
- Richard Aikens operates the Martinsburg Econo-Lodge, a motel and restaurant.
- The most convenient access to the Econo-Lodge for southbound travelers on Interstate 81 was the Route 901 overpass bridge.
- On September 18, 1996, Robert Debow, an employee of Craig Paving, Inc., was driving a truck carrying a trackhoe that was too high to pass under the Route 901 overpass.
- Debow's truck struck and caused substantial damage to the bridge.
- As a result of the damage, the bridge was closed for nineteen days for repairs.
- During the bridge closure, Aikens' business experienced decreased revenues, resulting in approximately $9,000 in lost income.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Aikens filed a negligence action against Robert Debow and Craig Paving, Inc. in the Circuit Court of Berkeley County (trial court).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that as a matter of law, Aikens could not recover for purely economic losses without accompanying bodily injury or property damage.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
- The parties jointly requested, and the trial court agreed, to certify the legal question to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (the state's highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a claimant who has sustained purely economic loss as a result of an interruption in commerce caused by negligent injury to the property of a third person recover damages absent either privity of contract or some other special relationship with the alleged tortfeasor?
Opinions:
Majority - Scott, Justice.
No. A claimant may not recover for purely economic loss resulting from negligent injury to a third party's property without physical harm, privity of contract, or a special relationship. The court held that the determination of legal duty is a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury. While foreseeability is a key element of duty, public policy requires courts to draw a line to prevent limitless liability for 'an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class.' Adopting the majority 'economic loss rule' from jurisdictions following Robins Dry Dock, the court reasoned that allowing recovery for purely economic loss would open the floodgates to litigation from every person in the economic chain, creating a disproportionate and crushing burden on both the tortfeasor and the judicial system. The court created a hybrid rule, generally barring recovery but allowing it if the plaintiff can show physical harm, a contractual relationship, or a 'special relationship' where the plaintiff is affected differently from society in general and the harm was particularly foreseeable to the defendant.
Concurring - Starcher, Justice.
No. The concurring opinion agrees with the majority's holding but writes separately to emphasize that the concept of duty is flexible and should be applied on a case-by-case basis. The justice applauds the majority for rejecting a rigid, absolute bar to recovery and instead crafting a rule that allows for exceptions. He argues that courts should not use the fear of 'opening the floodgates' to obstruct all meritorious claims for economic loss. Instead, trial courts should protect defendants from limitless liability through a 'sedulous application of traditional concepts of duty and proximate causation to the facts of each case,' determining whether a 'special relationship' exists based on the specific circumstances.
Analysis:
This case formally establishes the economic loss rule in West Virginia negligence law, aligning the state with the majority of American jurisdictions. By rejecting a rigid, bright-line rule and instead adopting a hybrid approach with a 'special relationship' exception, the court creates a flexible standard. This decision attempts to balance the policy of compensating foreseeable victims against the need to prevent limitless liability that could have ruinous economic and social consequences. The ambiguity of what constitutes a 'special relationship' ensures that the doctrine will be developed by lower courts on a case-by-case basis, making the specific facts of future disputes critical to their outcomes.
