Once More—Economic Loss

Abstract

IThe brouhaha of the last two decades over negligent economic loss had already stimulated two valuable books (one in its second edition),' besides a trail of articles from every self-respecting scholar in the field. But Peter Cane's new work, Tort Law and Economic Interests,2 is a bird of different feather, of richer plumage and higher flight. Not content with covering merely the heart of contemporary controversy-the duty of care in negligence-it explores the whole range of tortious protection of economic interests, not limited by any means even to the so-called economic torts which have themselves undergone a profound process of revival, redefinition and expansion during the same period. The work thus perforce cuts across conventional classifications, such as the organization of torts into intentional, negligent and strict liability, or the familiar nominate torts like conversion, negligence or nuisance. All of these, including even assault and defamation, can generate compensation of economic losses, at least en passant, even if this is not their primary function, as is that of the economic torts which regulate the conduct of market activities. Organization of torts by reference to their impact on interests invaded is not entirely novel, but has not gained a large following. For traditional tort scholars accustomed to view the subject primarily through the lens of personal injuries, getting into Cane's book is an experience somewhat like Alice's crossing through the Looking Glass. Actually, the book starts off conventionally enough, after an orientational