About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Spring 2026)

handle is hein.ali/alitorts9928 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2026 Citations TORTS 3D: LIABILITY FOR ECONOMIC HARM CHAPTER 1. UNINTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF ECONOMIC LOSS § 1. Liability for the Unintentional Infliction of Economic Loss: General Principles Me.2025. Subsec. (1) quot. in sup., com. (a) cit. in sup. Non-profit corporations that operated hospitals in Maine filed claims for, among other things, negligence against sellers involved in marketing and distributing prescription opioids, alleging that sellers caused an opioid epidemic that required hospitals to incur high costs of care for patients diagnosed with opioid misuse, addiction, and dependency, with only partial reimbursement from private and government insurance. After a hearing, the trial court granted sellers' motions to dismiss. This court affirmed, holding that sellers were not liable to hospitals, because they did not have a tortious intent to inflict economic loss on hospitals under Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Economic Harm § 1. The court explained that the fundamental shortcoming of hospitals' argument was that they did not directly suffer the harm allegedly caused by sellers' wrongful conduct; rather, hospitals incurred indirect economic losses that were not necessarily compensable as a matter of law. Eastern Maine Medical Center v. Walgreen Co., 331 A.3d 380, 389. § 2. Economic Loss Defined N.D.Cal.2024. Quot. in ftn. In multi-district litigation, school districts and local government entities, on behalf of children and adolescents, sued social-media companies for, among other things, negligence under the laws of 19 states, alleging that defendants deliberately designed their social-media platforms to foster addiction in minors, requiring plaintiffs to spend substantial financial resources to mitigate the mental health and behavioral issues that minors suffered from their addiction. This court denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims based on Illinois' economic-loss doctrine, holding that plaintiffs' alleged damages in the form of resource expenditures to mitigate the consequences of mental- health harms did not stem from a loss of profits or an unexpectedly defective product, as required to constitute economic loss under Illinois law. The court noted that Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Economic Harm § 2 defined economic loss in broad terms as pecuniary damage not arising from injury to the plaintiffs' person or from physical harm to the plaintiffs' property. In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, 754 F.Supp.3d 946, 980. COPYRIGHT C2026 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.