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
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.
Step by Step Solution
3.59 Rating (170 Votes )
There are 3 Steps involved in it
No because Hanousek was the corporate officer responsible for the project and s... View full answer
Get step-by-step solutions from verified subject matter experts
Document Format (1 attachment)
111-L-B-L-T-C (66).docx
120 KBs Word File
