Richard Aikens and Motel 81, Inc., D/b/a Martinsburg Econo-Lodge, Plaintiffs v. Robert Debow and Craig Paving…

Summary

The court answered the reformulated certified question in the negative, holding that a claimant may not recover purely economic losses from an interruption in commerce caused by negligent injury to another’s property absent physical harm, contractual privity, or a sufficiently close special relationship creating a duty. It further held that the existence of duty is a legal question for the court, while negligence, due care, proximate cause, and concurrent negligence may present jury questions when the evidence permits differing conclusions. Justice Starcher, joined by Justice McGraw, concurred in the result but emphasized a flexible, case-by-case application of duty and proximate cause to preserve remedies for clearly foreseeable economic injuries.