New Hampshire
How Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States applies in New Hampshire: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Environmental Law.
New Hampshire employs the principles of apportionment and causation regarding liability for environmental contamination, much in line with the precedent set by Burlington Northern. The state emphasizes the importance of proving substantial connection and direct causation when attributing liability for hazardous waste cleanup to defendants.
In New Hampshire, liability under the state’s hazardous waste laws may be apportioned similarly to the federal Superfund statute, focusing on the degree of contribution to the contamination and the nature of involvement in the hazardous material’s release.
This case affirmed that environmental liability can be apportioned based on the contribution of each party to the contamination.
The court held that a property owner could be held liable for cleanup costs if they were found to have contributed to the hazardous waste release.
This decision underscored the necessity of demonstrating direct causation in environmental cleanup cases, echoing the principles of Burlington Northern.
New Hampshire's approach parallels the federal standard in Burlington Northern, particularly regarding the necessity of establishing a direct connection between the waste release and the party’s conduct. However, New Hampshire tends to focus more explicitly on the aspect of apportionment, recognizing varying degrees of responsibility among contributors.
Understanding the application of the principles from Burlington Northern is crucial for the New Hampshire bar exam, particularly in questions addressing liability for environmental cleanup costs.