Environmental Law

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

556 U.S. 599 (2009)

Study notes for Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.

A party is only liable as an arranger under CERCLA if it has the intent to dispose of hazardous substances, and liability can be apportioned among multiple parties.
Professor Notes

This case addresses critical issues related to arranger liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Professors often emphasize how the Supreme Court configured the intent behind 'arrangement' in determining liability, particularly noting that intent to dispose is a key factor. Additionally, the decision illustrated the ability to apportion liability among responsible parties, a significant development in environmental law that affects how future cases may be approached regarding clean-up responsibilities and cost distribution.

Another focal point is the decision's implications for business operations and their potential environmental impacts, encouraging careful consideration of how substances used in the course of business might lead to environmental liability. The assertion that the railroads were not jointly and severally liable brings insight on accountability among multiple parties, stressing the importance of evidentiary standards in establishing direct responsibility in environmental cases.

Cold Call Prep
  1. 1Explain the concept of arranger liability under CERCLA as applied in this case.
  2. 2What factors did the Court consider in determining whether Shell Oil Company was liable?
  3. 3Discuss the implications of the Court's apportionment of liability for the railroads.
  4. 4How does this case illustrate the principle of intent in environmental law?
  5. 5What are the broader impacts of this decision on businesses that handle hazardous substances?
  6. 6Describe the significance of the ruling in the context of joint and several liabilities.
  7. 7Why is the distinction between arranger liability and other forms of liability important?
Mnemonic Device

A.R.I. (Arranger Liability Intent) - Shell's business practices do not equal disposal intent.

Distinguish From
CaseDistinction
United States v. Atlantic Research Corp.In Atlantic Research, the court held that a party that voluntarily cleans up could seek recovery under CERCLA, unlike Burlington, which focused on arrangement intent.
Ashland Chemical Co. v. Frank D. Morrow, Inc.Ashland interpreted the issue of liability in a more expansive context regarding discharges, while Burlington required a specific intent for arranger liability.
Policy Arguments

For the Rule

Limiting arranger liability to parties that intended to dispose of hazardous substances promotes fair accountability and encourages responsible business practices.

Against the Rule

Narrowing the definition of arranger liability may allow hazardous substances to go unaddressed, potentially reducing incentives for companies to remediate contaminated sites.

Class Discussion Points
  • Consider the implications of intent-based liability on future environmental cases.
  • Discuss how this ruling may affect businesses that engage in the sale or transportation of hazardous materials.
  • Evaluate the balance between encouraging industrial activity and safeguarding environmental health as seen in this case.
Exam Angle

Exams may focus on the distinction of arranger liability and the intent required for such liability under CERCLA, as well as the implications of apportionment of liability among potentially responsible parties.

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.