Question

1. LRC and NA argued that because Met was not required to clean up, they should not be entitled to a contribution in the cost from either of them. However, if a CERCLA action had been brought against Met requiring it to clean up the site, then, according to LRC and NA, they would have been required to contribute. What incentive would a landowner have to voluntarily clean up if the argument made by LRC and NA were to prevail?
2. Look at the structure of CERCLA. Why do you think the current landowner is required to pay for clean up even where they are found not to have contributed to the disposal of the waste initially?
3. CERCLA does recognize the innocent landowner exception, but restricts it to the situation where hazardous waste deposited on a landowner’s property is by (1) an act of God; (2) an act of war; or (3) an act of a third party that has no contractual privity (relationship) to the defendant. None of these exceptions fit Met. Are these restrictions too narrow? Should a current landowner be responsible for cleanup if he had no notice of the presence of the waste and was not able to find out before purchasing the land? What would be the problem with a known or should have known standard here?


$1.99
Sales0
Views20
Comments0
  • CreatedSeptember 23, 2015
  • Files Included
Post your question
5000