Maryland
How Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States applies in Maryland: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Environmental Law.
Maryland incorporates the principles established in Burlington Northern regarding CERCLA liability, emphasizing that parties can only be held liable if they are found to be responsible parties under the statute's criteria. Maryland courts also consider the equitable allocation of liability among responsible parties based on their actual involvement in the contamination.
In Maryland, a party can be held liable for cleanup costs under CERCLA if they are deemed a responsible party, which includes current owners and operators of contaminated sites, as well as past owners and operators during the release of hazardous substances.
The court ruled that the Town was liable for cleanup costs as a responsible party, incorporating equitable factors inherent in the Burlington Northern case.
This case affirmed that liability under CERCLA in Maryland required showing the party's connection to the hazardous release, consistent with Burlington Northern's factual nexus requirement.
The court highlighted that joint and several liability could apply but must still be tied to demonstrable involvement in the contaminating activity.
Maryland’s approach largely mirrors the federal standard established under CERCLA, particularly concerning liability limitations based on active participation in pollution. However, Maryland courts may apply different equitable principles when determining apportionment among multiple parties compared to some federal precedents.
Burlington Northern principles are relevant for the Maryland bar exam, particularly in relation to CERCLA liability and environmental law questions that explore joint and several liability amongst responsible parties.