What is the test for pure economic loss under the law under Rylands v Fletcher?

The law under Rylands v. Fletcher, supra, has not been extended to cover pure economic loss. There is no allegation in the pleadings that any of the plaintiffs suffered any damage to their property as a result of the escape. The pleadings assert only interference with the plaintiffs’ rights to access their property and financial or economic loss. The plaintiffs argue that they suffered property damage because they were evacuated from their property and had a loss of the use and enjoyment of property. Such a characterization of loss of use of property as “damage to property”is a stretch, to say the least. As I have concluded earlier, interference with the right of access to property is simply economic loss. The plaintiffs’ claim does not allege damage to property, presumably because none occurred. As noted earlier, presumably the plaintiffs have pled their case as its highest. The damage they allege is pure economic loss.