Term: 2008
Docket: 07-1601
Burlington Northern And Santa Fe Railway Company, Et Al. v. United States Et Al.
- Pro
07-1601 BURLINGTON NO. & SANTA FE R. CO. V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 520 F.3d 918 CONSOLIDATED WITH 07-1607 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. CERT. GRANTED 10/1/2008 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Comprehensive, Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq., allows the government to obtain reimbursement for the costs of remediating hazardous waste sites from the owners and operators of land on which a disposal of hazardous substances has occurred. Because even passive landowners may be subjected to CERCLA liability, Congress removed language from early CERCLA bills mandating joint and several liability for multiple defendants who own or operate a particular site. In the present case, the Ninth Circuit nevertheless imposed joint and several liability for the entire cost of a facility’s remediation on two landlords, even though they owned only a portion of the overall site for a fraction of its period of operation, and the parcel they owned required no remediation. The question presented is: Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by reversing the district court’s reasonable apportionment of responsibility under CERCLA, and by adopting a standard of review and proof requirements that depart from common law principles and conflict with decisions of other circuits. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 03-17125, 03-17153, 03-17169
The U.S. Supreme Court case Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, et al. v. United States et al., 2008 revolved around the interpretation of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The dispute was about whether or not Shell Oil Company could be held liable for hazardous substance spills during delivery to a chemical distributor's facility owned by Brown & Bryant Inc (B&B), which later became contaminated due to poor storage practices by B&B. Additionally, it questioned if railroads who leased part of their land to B&B could also be held responsible for contamination on that property under CERCLA’s “arranger” liability provision. In a decision delivered by Justice Stevens, the court ruled in favor of both Shell and the Railways stating that arranger liability applies only when an entity enters into a transaction with intent to dispose of a hazardous substance; mere knowledge is insufficient for establishing this liability. Furthermore, they concluded that apportionment is permissible under CERCLA when there's reasonable basis for determining contribution from each party involved.
In the dissenting opinion for Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company v. United States, Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's interpretation of CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act). She argued that it was Congress' intent to hold all parties responsible for environmental contamination until they could prove their innocence or apportionment. The majority’s decision allowed companies to escape liability if they could demonstrate a reasonable basis for division of harm. Ginsburg believed this would undermine the effectiveness of CERCLA by allowing potentially responsible parties to avoid cleanup costs simply by showing some form of divisibility. This approach contradicted previous court decisions which held that when there is uncertainty about who caused what harm in toxic waste cases, courts should err on the side of holding defendants jointly and severally liable rather than letting them off scot-free.
