I realize the Harper family cannot just shut down the D&SNG. I am sure there are regulatory hoops that would have to be jumped through first.
But for the sake of argument, let's say the crews and employees of the D&SNG went of strike and Harper did not hire replacement workers to cross the lines. Nothing moves. No trains, sharp reduction in the number of tourists visiting to the Durango area.
Far fetched scenario, but still.
Does this give the local businesses who rely, whether they want to admit it or not, on the operation of the D&SNG for a significant portion of their business the right to sue for lost revenue?
In this scenario does the Hermosa Creek Grill have the right to sue the railroad for lost revenue?
My point is the railroad didn't operate because of the fire. Because the railroad did not run trains, the tourists did not come in large numbers and spend money at local businesses. IF the railroad is found liable for the fire AND the Hermosa Creek Grill had fire damage, then I think an argument can be made for damages to some extent.
But lost revenue? I'm not sure. Suppose the railroad had shut down until the line could be repaired after the flood damage (no trains operated from Rockwood)? Would that mean other businesses could sue for lost revenue?
The losses Hermosa Creek Grill suffered were largely due to lack of trains being operated, not the fire. That is the argument I would make as the D&SNG's attorney. Of course, I'm not a lawyer and have no clue about the law, be it the spirit of all applicable laws or the letter of said laws.