Environmental Law
556 U.S. 599 (2009)
Study notes for Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. United States: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
Liability under CERCLA can be apportioned among responsible parties if the harm is divisible.
This case is pivotal in shaping the understanding of liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Professors often emphasize the Supreme Court's clarification that liability can be apportioned among responsible parties when the harm is divisible. This case illustrates the importance of evidence in establishing the extent of contribution by each party to the overall harm, thus supporting a more equitable approach in environmental liability cases. Such insights can significantly affect how parties navigate both private litigation and regulatory enforcement actions related to environmental cleanups.
In addition to the legal principles, instructors may point out the broader implications for environmental policy, particularly how this decision might influence future cleanup operations and the incentives it creates for responsible parties to engage in cooperative remediation efforts. The ruling encourages parties to assess their contributions to environmental damage more carefully and consider the public policy implications of potential apportionment.
AP-ES: Apportionment is Possible when Evidence Supports
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| United States v. Union Gas Co. | In Union Gas, the Supreme Court upheld joint and several liability without considering apportionment; Burlington Northern allows for apportionment when harm is divisible. |
| California v. Southern Pacific Co. | California held that all parties were jointly liable; Burlington Northern introduced criteria for divisibility leading to apportionment. |
Allowing apportionment promotes fairness, incentivizing responsible parties to clean up and reducing the burden on single entities bearing full liability.
Apportionment may complicate cleanup efforts, potentially leading to disputes among parties regarding their respective liabilities and delaying necessary environmental remediation.
This case often appears on exams as a discussion point regarding apportionment of liability under CERCLA, testing students’ understanding of the distinction between joint and several liability and divisible harm.