전선절단사안에서의 불법행위책임에 관한 비교법적 연구

Abstract

The pure economic loss rule reveals that the rule is often cast in negative terms as a loss without antecedent harm to plaintiff’s person or property. In this context, the word “pure” plays a central role, for if there is economic loss that is connected to the slightest damage to person or property of the plaintiff (provided that all other conditions of liability are met) then the latter is called consequential economic loss and the whole set of damages may be recuperated without question. According to the dogmatic statements often used to justify the rule, consequential economic loss (sometimes also termed parasitic loss) is recoverable because it presupposes the existence of physical injuries, whereas pure economic loss strikes the victim’s wallet and nothing else. This explanation begs the question as to why pure economic interests should be granted lesser protection than interests in tangible property. Broadly speaking, pure economic loss arises out of the interdependence of relationships and interests in the modern world. These relationships may involve two or three parties. “Ricochet loss” classically arises when physical damage is done to the property or person of one party, which in turn causes the impairment of the rights of the plaintiff. We refer to this as a three-dimensional situation. The direct victim sustains physical damage while plaintiff is a secondary victim who incurs only economic harm. The “Cable Cases” is simply variations of Ricochet harm―While manoeuvring his mechanical excavator, an employee of the Acme road works company cut the cable belonging to the public utility which delivers electricity to the Beta factory. The unexpected blackout caused damage to the machinery and the loss of two days of production. The factory owner is claiming compensation from the excavator not only for the damage of machinery but also for the damage caused by the loss of production. Cato, another factory owner, experienced no damage to his machinery, but his plant was rendered idle and he lost two days of production―. The purpose of this study is to inquire to what extent, if any, there exists a common core of principles and rules concerning compensation for pure economic loss in “Cable(Blackout) Cases” within each countries’ Tort Law.