Environmental Law (CERCLA/Superfund)

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States — Study Notes

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.

For arranger liability under CERCLA, intent to dispose must be demonstrated, and harm can be apportioned based on evidence.
Professor Notes

In Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed critical issues surrounding arranger liability under CERCLA. The Court highlighted that for a party to be an arranger, it must have the intention to dispose of hazardous substances. This case clarified that merely knowing that spills may occur during a buyer’s handling of a product does not meet this intent requirement. This decision significantly delineates the boundaries of liability for manufacturers and sellers, as it protects those who distribute useful products where disposal was not intended.

Moreover, the case introduced an important principle regarding the apportionment of harm in joint and several liability contexts. The Court held that harm can be reasonably apportioned among potentially responsible parties (PRPs), which provides a mechanism for attributing liability based on evidence rather than collective responsibility. This aspect has substantial implications for future CERCLA cases and reflects a more nuanced approach to environmental liability that may foster fairer allocation of cleanup costs.

Cold Call Prep
  1. 1Explain the significance of the Court's decision regarding arranger liability and intent.
  2. 2Discuss the evidentiary basis for apportionment in this case as it relates to joint and several liability.
  3. 3What distinction did the Court make between knowing about potential spills versus intending to dispose?
  4. 4Provide examples of how this ruling might impact future CERCLA litigation.
  5. 5Describe the role of B&B in the contamination and how this influenced the court's ruling.
  6. 6How does this case interact with prior precedents in environmental law?
  7. 7What implications does this ruling have for sellers of hazardous materials?
Mnemonic Device

APPORTION - Arranger Product, Proof Of Reasonable intent, Total harm ONus.

Distinguish From
CaseDistinction
United States v. AT&T Co.AT&T dealt more with the categorization of operations leading to contamination rather than intent in product sale.
New York v. Shore Realty Corp.Shore Realty involved the definition and establishment of liability based on property ownership, not sale of products.
Duquesne Light Co. v. EPADuquesne focused on federal enforcement actions and compliance rather than private party arranger liability.
Policy Arguments

For the Rule

The ruling fosters a clearer understanding of liability, encouraging manufacturers to engage responsibly in sales without fear of unintended liability for disposal.

Against the Rule

Limiting arranger liability may incentivize negligence in handling hazardous materials by reducing the consequences for manufacturers.

Class Discussion Points
  • The implications of the ruling on the responsibility of suppliers and manufacturers in hazardous materials distribution.
  • The role of intent in environmental liability and how it shapes corporate practices.
  • Potential differences in the application of CERCLA provisions across various jurisdictions.
Exam Angle

This case often appears on exams in the context of discussing the nuances of arranger liability under CERCLA and the principles of apportioning liability among PRPs. Be prepared to analyze the implications of intent and the evidentiary requirements for demonstrating reasonable apportionment.

View Full Case Brief

Ace Your Cold Calls with Briefly

Get AI-powered case briefs, study notes, and cold call prep for every case in your casebook.