100 N.J. 246, 495 A.2d 107 (1985)
On July 22, 1981, a fire began in the Port Newark freight yard of defendant Consolidated Rail Corporation when ethylene oxide manufactured by defendant BASF Wyandotte Company escaped from a tank car owned by defendant Union Tank Car Company and leased to BASF. The tank car was punctured during a coupling operation with another rail car and ignited.1
The municipal authorities evacuated the area within a one-mile radius surrounding the fire, which included the North Terminal building of Newark International Airport where plaintiff People Express Airlines’ business operations are based. People Express employees were prohibited from using the North Terminal for twelve hours, although the feared explosion never occurred.2
The plaintiff contends that it suffered business-interruption losses as a result of the evacuation. These losses consisted of cancelled scheduled flights and lost reservations because employees were unable to answer the telephones to accept bookings. Fixed operating expenses allocable to the evacuation period were incurred and paid despite the offices being closed. No physical damage to airline property and no personal injury occurred.3
According to the original complaint, each defendant acted negligently and these acts proximately caused the plaintiff’s harm. An amended complaint alleged additional counts of nuisance and strict liability.4 Conrail moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion on the ground that absent property damage or personal injury economic loss was not recoverable in tort. The trial court also granted summary judgment motions by BASF and Union Car on the same reasoning.5 The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment and remanded the cause to the trial court. This Court granted defendant Union Car’s petition for certification, in which Conrail and BASF joined.6
Plaintiff asserted at oral argument that at least some of the defendants were aware from prior experiences that ethylene oxide is a highly volatile substance. Further, emergency response plans in case of an accident had been prepared.7 When the fire occurred that gave rise to this lawsuit, some of the defendants’ consultants helped determine how much of the surrounding area to evacuate.8
Whether a defendant’s negligent conduct that interferes with a plaintiff’s business resulting in purely economic losses, unaccompanied by property damage or personal injury, is compensable in tort?9
A defendant owes a duty of care to take reasonable measures to avoid the risk of causing economic damages, aside from physical injury, to particular plaintiffs or plaintiffs comprising an identifiable class with respect to whom defendant knows or has reason to know are likely to suffer such damages from its conduct. A defendant failing to adhere to this duty of care may be found liable for such economic damages proximately caused by its breach of duty.10
Yes. People Express qualifies as an identifiable class because its terminal operations were in close proximity to the freight yard and its business activities were obvious and particularly susceptible to disruption from an evacuation. The defendants had reason to know of the risk of economic harm to this specific airline given the volatility of the chemical and the preparation of emergency response plans that included area evacuation. The business-interruption losses consisting of cancelled flights, lost reservations, and fixed expenses were the natural and probable consequence of the negligent conduct and therefore proximately caused.11
Traditional concerns over limitless liability are addressed by limiting recovery to this ascertainable class rather than the general public.12
A defendant’s negligent conduct that interferes with a plaintiff’s business resulting in purely economic losses, unaccompanied by property damage or personal injury, is compensable in tort when the plaintiff belongs to an identifiable class particularly foreseeable to the defendant.13