{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028189910979228485, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00370919881305638, 'mean_word_length': 4.995555555555556, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Liability for Pure Economic Loss Negligently Caused—French and English Law Compared

THE present study is concerned with liability for economic loss in England in the tort of negligence and in France under Articles 1382-3 of the Code Civil. It is concerned with loss which has been negligently caused, since liability for intentionally caused economic loss involves different policy considerations, both (a) because there is a stronger possibility of deterring, and a stronger justification for imposing liability by reason of, such action; and (b) because there is a limit to those who can claim inherent in the fact of intentional damage, i.e. the claimants must be objects of the defendant's intention. It is concerned with pure, i.e., non-consequential, economic loss, because consequential economic loss involves different policy considerations, both (a) because to deny liability for such loss would be to refuse the often most important part of the plaintiff's claim, in particular in the case of personal injury, but also in the case, for example, of damage to goods used in a business; and (b) because there is a limit to those who suffer economic loss consequent on their own physical damage, by reason of the fact that the number of persons who suffer physical damage as the result of someone's negligence is usually comparatively small.