Abstract

On March 24, 1989, an Exxon oil tanker crashed into a reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling approximately ten million gallons of oil and destroying virtually all the ocean life in the area. The captain of the ship, Joseph J. Hazelwood, was legally intoxicated at the time of the accident. The oil spill caused local fishers, restaurants, and other commercial enterprises that depend on ocean life to suffer extensive economic losses. Parties injured by the accident to date have filed over thirty-one lawsuits against Exxon. These litigants are likely to pursue recovery for the economic losses caused by Exxon's negligence.

For over a century, courts have routinely rejected a cause of action for negligent infliction of pure economic loss. In the last ten years, however, five American courts rejected the traditional rule and established a rule recognizing this cause of action. The development and acceptance of the minority rule has created a great deal of controversy.

After a historical analysis of the tort, this Note focuses on the controversy surrounding the imposition of liability. Specifically, this Note considers the social and theoretical implications of both permitting and denying recovery. Finally, this Note examines the state court decisions that permit recovery for negligent infliction of economic loss and argues that the concerns about imposing liability have not been borne out in practice.

How to Cite