Opinion ID: 2144159
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Moorman

Text: Also, pursuant to Moorman, the trial court dismissed Hartford's nuisance claim as to those plaintiffs who did not incur any injury to their persons or property, but rather incurred only economic loss. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Moorman doctrine does not bar an otherwise proper nuisance claim. The trial court correctly recognized that private nuisance is a tort. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 822, Comment a, at 109 (1979); W. Keeton, Prosser & Keeton on Torts § 87, at 622 (5th ed. 1984). Although the appellate court recognized this, it nevertheless held that the rule of Moorman does not apply to nuisance claims, reasoning that: the application of Moorman to nuisance actions would completely gut the very basis of the action in that most nuisance claims are based upon a non-physical force such as noise, odor, smoke, dust, or even flies. Clearly, in these cases, there is no property damage in a Moorman context, yet such actions have all been sustained in Illinois courts. The trial court correctly applied Moorman to Hartford's nuisance claim. The court recognized the previously discussed policy behind the economic loss rule that the economic consequences of any single accident are virtually limitless. As stated earlier, the economic loss doctrine avoids the consequences of open-ended tort liability. Moorman, 91 Ill.2d at 88, 61 Ill.Dec. 746, 435 N.E.2d 443; see In re Illinois Bell Switching Station Litigation, 161 Ill.2d at 246-47, 204 Ill.Dec. 216, 641 N.E.2d 440. We agree with the trial court that there is no reason to treat the tort of nuisance    differently from any other tort. Accord Dick Meyers Towing Service, Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1023, 1025 n. 4 (5th Cir.1978); In re Complaint of Marine Navigation Sulphur Carriers, Inc., 507 F.Supp. 205, 210 (E.D.Va.1980), aff'd, 638 F.2d 700 (4th Cir.1981). A plaintiff in a private nuisance action may recover all consequential damages flowing from the injury to the use and enjoyment of his or her person or property. See Schatz v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 51 Ill.2d 143, 281 N.E.2d 323 (1972). However, recovery of damages for solely economic loss is not permissible. See 4 F. Harper, F. James & O. Gray, Torts § 25.18A, at 622-23 (2d ed. 1986).