Economic Harm Torts Posts
In Barclay v. Castruccio, 230 A.3d 80 (Md. 2020), the Court of Appeals of Maryland decided to recognize the tort of intentional interference with a prospective inheritance or gift, and to adopt the standards for that tort as set forth in Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Liability for Economic Harm § 19.
Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Liability for Economic Harm, completes the fourth installment of the Restatement Third of Torts. This Restatement, for which Dean Ward Farnsworth of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law served as Reporter, covers four principal areas of tort law: unintentional infliction of economic loss, liability for fraud, interference with economic interests, and misuse of legal procedure.
The California Supreme Court cited the Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Liability for Economic Harm in its recent decision involving the issue of whether a gas company had a tort duty to guard against purely economic losses.
Two Restatement projects, Economic Harm Torts and Liability Insurance, were reviewed and approved for the final time by ALI membership at the 2018 Annual Meeting, marking the completion of both projects.
At today’s 95th Annual Meeting, members of The American Law Institute voted to approve Tentative Draft No. 3 of Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Liability for Economic Harm. Today’s vote marks the completion of this project.
When is it a tort to interfere with somebody else’s contract? In this video, project Reporter Ward Farnsworth discusses the development of the tort of interference with economic interests since the Restatement Second of Torts.
Project Reporter Ward Farnsworth discusses economic loss in the Economic Harm Torts video below.
Economic Harm Torts Project Reporter Ward Farnsworth discusses interference with economic relationships in the video below.
At its meeting in Philadelphia on January 18 and 19, the Council reviewed drafts for several projects, with the following outcomes:
I consider a Restatement in general to be an exercise in harnessing collective wisdom, not the wisdom of a Reporter. It’s an attempt to gather the collective wisdom of the courts in this country on various difficult questions, and the collective wisdom of the bench, the bar, and the legal academy in making sense out of what the courts have said.