How have courts interpreted the "impact or injury" rule?

But application of the 'impact or injury' rule--which denies court access to arguably injured parties--has resulted in a jurisprudential conflict of no small proportions. A fundamental principle of our system of justice is that for every wrong there is a remedy (e.g., an injured party should be compensated for all damage proximately caused by a wrongdoer); and departure from this principle may be justified only by the most compelling considerations. (Crisci v. Security Ins. Co., 66 Cal.2d 425, 433, 58 Cal.Rptr. 13, 426 P.2d 173.) Since application of the 'impact or injury' requirement constitutes a significant departure from the aforestated maxim, it has been the object of much criticism by both jurists and scholars.