Suppose that at trial, Hanousek argued that he could not be convicted because he was not aware

Question:

Suppose that at trial, Hanousek argued that he could not be convicted because he was not aware of the requirements of the CWA. Would this defense be successful? Why or why not?

Edward Hanousek worked for Pacific & Arctic Railway and Navigation Company (P&A) as a roadmaster of the White Pass & Yukon Railroad in Alaska. Hanousek was responsible “for every detail of the safe and efficient maintenance and construction of track, structures and marine facilities of the entire railroad,” including special projects. One project was a rock quarry, known as “6-mile,” above the Skagway River. Next to the quarry, and just beneath the surface, ran a high-pressure oil pipeline owned by Pacific & Arctic Pipeline, Inc., P&A’s sister company. When the quarry’s backhoe operator punctured the pipeline, an estimated 1,000 to 5,000 gallons of oil were discharged into the river. Hanousek was charged with negligently discharging a harmful quantity of oil into a navigable water of the United States in violation of the criminal provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the above question.


Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Step by Step Answer:

Related Book For  book-img-for-question

Business Law Text and Cases

ISBN: 978-0324655223

11th Edition

Authors: Kenneth W. Clarkson, Roger LeRoy Miller, Gaylord A. Jentz, F

Question Posted: