Plaintiffs seek recovery from defendant bridge contractor for purely economic loss incurred due to the alleged nonintentional harm to a bridge, which resulted in its closing. The bridge served as an artery of commerce to those claiming the loss. Plaintiffs had no ownership in the bridge, sustained no physical injury or damage to their property or person, and had no contractual arrangement with the alleged wrongdoer. The trial court sustained defendant’s mdtion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs’ claims. Upon plaintiffs’ appeal, we affirm.
The Siouxland Veteran’s Memorial Bridge spans the Missouri River linking Sioux City, Iowa, and South Sioux City, Nebraska. It was constructed between the spring of 1977 and the summer of 1981 and was then opened for public traffic.
On May 6, 1982, cracks were discovered in a steel structural member of the bridge, rendering it unsafe. The bridge was then closed to traffic.
Defendant Pittsburgh-Des Moines Corporation allegedly was the prime contractor and fabricated and sold the structural steel members used in construction of the bridge.
Plaintiffs are connected with a motel and restaurant known as the Marina Inn in South Sioux City, Nebraska. They brought an action for $65,000,000 against defendant for themselves and all other persons in Sioux City and South Sioux City connected with restaurants, bars, motels and other retail establishments sustaining damages as a result of the closing of the bridge to traffic.
Plaintiffs’ petition against defendant sought recovery on the theories of ordinary negligence, res ipsa loquitur, strict liability in tort, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose in connection with the manufacture or fabrication of the steel structural members and in the erection of the bridge.
After discovery by answers to interrogatories and requests for admissions, it was established that plaintiffs had suffered only economic loss and no physical injuries to their persons or property as a result of the bridge closing.
The record showed the following relative to the named plaintiffs. Nebraska Inn *126 keepers, Inc., a Nebraska corporation, operates the Marina Inn, a restaurant-motel complex in South Sioux City. It claims lost past and future profits and diminution in value of its motel and restaurant business. Ted C. Carlson, the president of the corporation, claims diminution in value of his investment interest in Nebraska Innkeepers, Inc. Beverly Zagozan resides in Sioux City, Iowa, and works as a waitress at the Marina Inn and receives tips and gratuities from patrons. She commutes to work daily. She claims lost income and increased commuting expenses. W.A. Klinger, Inc., an Iowa corporation, owns the motel complex and claims loss of rental income and diminution in value of its real estate.
Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, Iowa R.Civ.P. 237, on the ground that plaintiffs were not entitled, in the absence of physical injury to their property, to maintain claims for solely economic losses allegedly sustained as a result of the closing of the bridge. The record consisted of the pleadings and defendant’s interrogatories and requests for admissions and plaintiffs’ answers thereto. The court sustained the motion. The court noted, “It is conceded that plaintiffs suffered only economic loss due to the bridge closing.” The court held in substance that plaintiffs could not recover for unintentionally caused economic harm, at least in the absence of such factors as ownership of the bridge, physical injury or damage to property, or a direct contractual relationship with defendant.
Plaintiffs appealed and contend: (1) that a tort claim should be recognized for negligently caused purely economic loss sustained as a result of a bridge closing; and (2) that the absence of a genuine issue of material fact was not established with regard to plaintiffs’ claims based on breach of warranty. They also assert for the first time on appeal that they are entitled to recovery based on a public nuisance theory.
I. Negligence theory. Plaintiffs contend they should be able to recover for their purely economic or business losses sustained as a result of non-intentional harm to a public bridge, resulting in its closing, even though no physical or direct harm occurred to their property or persons. Plaintiffs’ claimed damages consist of economic loss such as reduced income, increased expenses, and diminution of the value of investments resulting from the closing of the bridge.
This is a question of first impression in Iowa. Therefore, we will examine cases from other jurisdictions that have considered the matter. The cases uniformly hold that a person who sustains economic loss only cannot recover in damages from persons whose negligent conduct damages bridges, regardless of how vital to the claimant be the flow of commerce that is interrupted. Exceptions to that general rule such as ownership of the bridge, physical injury or direct damages to the claimant’s property or person, or a direct contractual relation with the alleged wrongdoer are not factually present here.
The well-established general rule is that a plaintiff who has suffered only economic loss due to another’s negligence has not been injured in a manner which is legally cognizable or compensable.
Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint,
In
Rickards v. Sun Oil Co.,
23 N.J.Misc. 89,
In
Petition of Kinsman Transit Co.,
In a prior lawsuit, Kinsman Transit Company, Continental Grain Company, and the City of Buffalo were all found negligent. See
Petition of Kinsman Transit Co.,
As a result of these events, claimant Cargill suffered additional expenses for transportation and storage of grain when it was forced to purchase wheat elsewhere to fulfill a contract. Cargill would have used wheat stored aboard a ship to complete the contract, but the ship could not reach Car-gill’s elevators due to the closed river.
Cargo Carriers’ losses arose out of the unloading of a ship that had been struck by one of the two drifting ships and knocked from its dock. Before the ship could be returned to the dock, an ice jam formed between the ship and the dock, making normal unloading impossible. Cargo Carriers sought to recover expenses incurred in renting special equipment to complete the unloading of the ship over the ice.
The court noted that claimants had not suffered any direct or immediate property damage and held, in affirming the trial court’s entry of an order dismissing plaintiffs’ claims, that “the connection between defendants’ negligence and the claimants’ damages is too tenuous and remote to permit recovery.”
Kinsman,
In
General Foods Corp. v. United States,
448 F.Supp. Ill (D.Md.1978), plaintiff sought to recover economic damages, from defendants Penn Central Transportation Company and the United States, for its injuries arising out of the closing of the Penn Central Railroad Bridge over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal which was caused by the SS YORKMAR ramming into it. The court granted the motion by defendant United States to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint based on its holding that economic losses suffered by the plaintiff in conducting its business, even if proven, are not recoverable damages as a matter of law. Relying on
Kinsman,
the court said that “even if General Foods is a foreseeable plaintiff, recovery will be denied” because “ ‘the law does not spread its protection so far.’ ”
Id.
at 114, 116 (quoting
Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint,
Courts which have addressed this issue have repeatedly expressed concern that a contrary rule would open the door to virtually limitless suits, often of a highly speculative and remote nature. Such suits would expose the negligent defendant to a severe penalty, and would produce serious problems in litigation, particularly in the areas of proof and apportionment of damages.
Id. at 113.
In
In re Marine Navigation Sulphur Carriers, Inc.,
The most recent bridge case,
Leadfree Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp.,
Plaintiffs Leadfree Enterprises, Inc. and its president, Larry White, brought an action on behalf of the class of people who suffered incidental and consequential damages as a result of the closing of the bridge. They sought $75,000,000 from defendants asserting that the closing of the bridge caused them loss of business, employment, income, time, and “numerous personal activities and opportunities.” They asserted six claims based upon breach of warranty, negligence, and product liability theories. They did not contend that they suffered any physical damage to their property or injury to their person, nor that they had any property interest in the bridge.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. These motions were granted by the federal district court which held that under Wisconsin law a plaintiff cannot recover unless he has suffered physical injury to something in which he has at least some ownership or property interest. The district court noted that allowance of a claim for purely economic damages arising from another’s negligent actions would “enter a field that has no just or sensible stopping point.”
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal noting that “[i]n the economic injury case, there is less a fear of fraudulent claims than a sense of wanting to have a sensible stopping point in order to preclude open-ended, crushing liability on a tort-feasor.” Id. at 808.
The common thread running through these cases establishes unequivocally that a plaintiff cannot recover for purely economic loss, in the absence of physical injury, against a defendant who has negligently caused the closing of a public bridge or river. We conclude that these authorities are persuasive on the present issue before us and, accordingly, hold that plaintiffs cannot maintain a claim for purely economic damages arising out of defendant’s alleged negligence because it lacks a legal foundation to support it.
Cf. State v. F.W. Fitch Co.,
Plaintiffs argue that the rule barring recovery for negligently caused economic damages was rejected by this court in
*129
Schiltz v. Cullen-Schiltz & Assoc., Inc.,
II. Breach of warranty theory. Plaintiffs also contend that the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, Iowa R.Civ.P. 237(c), was not established with regard to their claims based on breach of warranty and, therefore, defendant should not have been granted summary judgment.
Plaintiffs’ petition alleged that defendant breached its warranties of merchantability and fitness for particular purposes in regard to the steel structural members of the bridge and that plaintiffs, as third party beneficiaries pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code, Iowa Code section 554.2318, were entitled to be compensated for such breach.
Section 554.2318 provides in pertinent part:
Third party beneficiaries of warranties express or implied. A seller’s warranty whether express or implied extends to any person who may reasonably be expected to use, consume or be affected by the goods and who is injured by breach of the warranty.
(Emphasis added.)
Plaintiffs’ reliance on this provision is not well taken, however, because they have incurred only economic losses. Section 554.2318 does not extend its warranty protection to third party beneficiaries who have suffered only economic loss, because the term “injured” has been interpreted by this court to include only
“physical harm
to the plaintiff or his property.”
Cunningham v. Kartridg Pak Co.,
We conclude, therefore, that plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain a breach of warranty action under section 554.2318 as a matter of law because they have not suffered physical harm to their person or property.
III. Public nuisance theory. Plaintiffs assert here for the first time that they should be able to recover on a public nuisance theory. They also say that under “notice pleading,” Iowa R.Civ.P. 69(a), the public nuisance theory would be contained in their pleading of negligence by defendant. We need not, however, address the issue of whether plaintiffs have preserved error on the newly asserted public nuisance theory because such theory provides no relief to plaintiffs on the facts of this case.
Plaintiffs’ contention that the law of public nuisance is controlling in this case is based on a recent bridge closing case. In
Stop & Shop Companies, Inc. v. Fisher,
*130 The question is admittedly one of policy; at what point should the tortfeasor’s liability stop. We recognize the wisdom of the general rule which denies recovery for negligently caused economic harm. However, not all negligent acts give rise to a public nuisance, or more particularly, to an obstruction of a public way. In light of the degree of harm required for an obstruction to amount to a public nuisance, and the dependence of businesses and their customers on access to business establishments, we conclude that recovery may be warranted in some cases.
The plaintiff must suffer special pecuniary harm from the loss of access. Severe pecuniary loss is usually a special type of harm, but if a whole community suffers such loss, then it becomes a public wrong and the plaintiff cannot recover. Thus, the question becomes whether so many businesses have suffered the same economic harm that the plaintiffs damages are no longer special.
[[Image here]]
... In public nuisance claims we now decide that, absent physical harm or immediate or direct loss of access to the plaintiffs property, relief is warranted only where the plaintiff has suffered special pecuniary harm and substantial impairment of access.
The record does not support even a slight inference that special damages are present in this case. Plaintiffs’ petition affirmatively expresses the absence of special damages when it sets forth this case as a class action:
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other owners, operators and employees of restaurants, bars, motels and other retail establishments in South Sioux City, Nebraska and Sioux City, Iowa similarly situated. This class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
The fact that plaintiffs assert this claim on behalf of the entire retail business communities of South Sioux City, Nebraska, and Sioux City, Iowa, implies that whatever damages have been suffered by plaintiffs have also been suffered by the entire business community and, therefore, such damages are public in nature rather than special.
Plaintiffs’ reliance on Iowa public nuisance law on road closings is also misplaced. Plaintiffs cite
Miller v. Schenck,
But, to entitle plaintiff to recover, it was incumbent on him to prove, in addition to [the existence of the highway, and of the obstruction thereof by plaintiff], that he had sustained some special damage or injury, which was not shared by the public generally. That he could not maintain an action for damages without proof of such special injury is clear on principle, and is well settled by the authorities.
Brant v. Plumer,
We conclude, therefore, that plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain a public nuisance action based on the fact that they have not suffered special damages.
We affirm the district court’s sus-tention of defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on our conclusions under this record that plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain an action against defendant for negligence, breach of warranty, or public nuisance. Our holding, however, only ap *131 plies to the named plaintiffs because the record does not show the court had yet certified this action as a class action pursuant to Iowa R.Civ.P. 42.
We note that the certified cost for printing the defendant’s brief exceeds the amount allowable under Iowa R.App.P. 16(c). The clerk shall not tax as costs an amount in excess of that permissible under the rule.
AFFIRMED.