permitted those plaintiffs who were commercial fishermen, as well as owners of boats, tackle and bait shops, and marinas, to proceed on negligence and nuisance theories against the defendant although the damages claimed were purely economic and there was no direct physical impact on the plaintiffs’ property. Pruitt, however, constitutes an exception to the general rule prohibiting the recovery of purely economic losses absent physical impact. In cases in which a plaintiffs business is partially based upon the exercise of a public right, the plaintiff may be able to recover purely economic damages caused by a defendant’s negligence in polluting the public resource upon which the plaintiff relies. See, e.g., Louisiana ex rel. Guste v. M/V Testbank, 752 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir.1985) (en banc) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 477 U.S. 903, 106 S.Ct. 3271,
holding that funds were unavailable for attachment under section 1610 because they were never used for or designated for use in commercial activity holding that the juvenile defendants who voluntarily left their homes in the middle of night to ride to the police department in patrol cars and who were told they were not under arrest were not in custody holding that defendants who were responsible for collision resulting in pollution of river were liable to commercial fishermen holding that the claims were not preempted by  7422 where the defendants were the plaintiffs employers responsible for tax collection because here plaintiff is not challenging defendants withholding of fica taxes rather he is challenging their failure to follow the special timing rule resulting in a reduction to his benefits and devastating tax consequences holding that private defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity but remanding for a determination of whether they were liable as government actors