Environmental Law
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, 556 U.S. 599 (2009)
Study notes for Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
Intent is required for arranger liability under CERCLA, and harm can be apportioned if supported by evidence.
In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the liability of companies under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) concerning the definition of an 'arranger.' The Court concluded that intent is a key factor in determining liability, emphasizing that Shell Oil was not liable as it did not intend for its product to leak, thus setting a precedent for future cases regarding the necessity of intent in determining arranger liability. Additionally, this case is significant for its discussion on the apportionment of harm, wherein the Court asserted that the evidence could support divisibility of harm to allocate liability among potentially responsible parties, a departure from the traditional view of joint and several liabilities in environmental cleanup cases.
Intent is Key: No Spills, No Liability.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. | Unlike Burlington Northern, Atlantic Research addressed the scope of reimbursement actions by 'potentially responsible parties,' showcasing different aspects of liability not focusing on arranger intent. |
| Chem-Dyne Corp. | Chem-Dyne emphasized the breadth of joint and several liability under CERCLA without addressing the specificity of intent in arranger liability, illustrating a contrast in legal focus. |
Limiting arranger liability to instances of intent prevents companies from being held liable for unforeseen accidents, encouraging economic activity without fear of undue environmental litigation.
This rule may lead to gaps in accountability, allowing major polluters to escape liability, which undermines the primary goal of CERCLA—effective cleanup and remediation of hazardous waste sites.
This case often appears on exams as a critical example of how intent impacts arranger liability under CERCLA and as a pivotal point of discussion for the apportionment of liability among multiple parties involved in environmental contamination.