532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia Center, Inc., 96 N.Y.2d 280 (2001)

In cases of widespread economic disruption, a duty of care in negligence does not extend to protect against purely economic loss without accompanying personal injury or property damage, and a public nuisance claim requires a special injury distinct from that suffered by the community at large.

Summary

These consolidated appeals arose from two construction-related collapses in Manhattan. Businesses sought recovery for economic losses suffered due to street closures ordered after the incidents. The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether landowners owed a duty of care to protect against purely economic loss in the absence of physical injury or property damage, and whether businesses could maintain a claim for public nuisance. The Court held that no duty existed for purely economic losses and that the businesses did not suffer a special injury required to sustain a public nuisance claim, reversing the Appellate Division’s order in two cases and affirming in the third.

Facts

On December 7, 1997, a portion of the south wall of 540 Madison Avenue collapsed, leading to the closure of 15 blocks of Madison Avenue. 532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods, Inc., a delicatessen, and 5th Ave. Chocolatiere, retailers two blocks away, both suffered economic losses due to the closure. On July 21, 1998, a construction elevator tower collapsed in Times Square, causing street closures and building evacuations. Goldberg Weprin & Ustin, a law firm, and other businesses in the area also incurred economic losses. All plaintiffs sought to recover for lost income due to the disruptions.

Procedural History

In 532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods and 5th Ave. Chocolatiere, the Supreme Court dismissed the negligence and public nuisance claims. The Appellate Division reinstated the negligence and public nuisance claims. In Goldberg Weprin & Ustin, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal. The New York Court of Appeals consolidated the cases, reversing the Appellate Division in 532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods and 5th Ave. Chocolatiere and affirming in Goldberg Weprin & Ustin.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a landowner owes a duty of care in negligence to protect against purely economic loss in the absence of personal injury or property damage to businesses affected by street closures following a building collapse?

2. Whether businesses affected by street closures following a building collapse suffered a “special injury” sufficient to maintain a claim for public nuisance?

Holding

1. No, because limiting the scope of a defendant’s duty to those who suffered personal injury or property damage as a result of the event provides a principled basis for reasonably apportioning liability.

2. No, because the economic loss was common to an entire community, and the plaintiffs suffered it only in a greater degree than others, not a different kind of harm.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that while harm may be foreseeable, foreseeability alone does not define duty. A duty may arise from a special relationship, but it must be circumscribed to avoid exposing defendants to unlimited liability. Citing Strauss v. Belle Realty Co. and Milliken & Co. v. Consolidated Edison Co., the Court emphasized the need to limit liability in cases of widespread disruption to avoid “crushing exposure” to potentially limitless claims. The Court distinguished the present cases from Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp. v. FMC Corp., where there was direct physical damage alongside the economic loss. Here, the economic losses were too remote. The Court declined to follow People Express Airlines v. Consolidated Rail Corp., which allowed recovery for purely economic loss, finding it created an unacceptably broad scope of duty. The Court stated, “In such circumstances, limiting the scope of defendants’ duty to those who have, as a result of these events, suffered personal injury or property damage—as historically courts have done—affords a principled basis for reasonably apportioning liability.” Regarding public nuisance, the Court found that the economic harm suffered by the businesses was similar in kind to that suffered by the community at large, even if the degree of harm was greater for the named plaintiffs. Quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821C, comment h, the court stated, “the economic loss was ‘common to an entire community and the plaintiff [s] suffer [ed] it only in a greater degree than others, it is not a different kind of harm and the plaintifffs] cannot recover for the invasion of the public right’.”