Bonnieview v. Woodmont: Court Sorts out Environmental Liability between Homeowners and Developers

Bonnieview Homeowners Ass’n v. Woodmont Builders, LLC,—F. Supp. 2d—, No. Civ. A. 03CV4317(DRD), 2009 WL 2999355 (D.N.J. Sept. 22, 2009), was a suit brought by a homeowners’ association and its individual members against the developers of the property where their homes were located and the municipality. In a recent opinion, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey made several important rulings applying federal and state environmental statutes and common law. First, the developers were potentially liable to plaintiffs under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), where their soil grading and stockpiling activities distributed previously contaminated soil around the site, which had been used as a fruit orchard. Second, however, the court prohibited plaintiffs from recovering under CERCLA or New Jersey's Spill Compensation and Control Act (Spill Act) because they had not incurred any environmental cleanup costs compensable under the two statutes. Third, plaintiffs were innocent purchasers not subject to CERCLA liability under a 2002 amendment to the statute. A negligence claim against the municipality failed, however, because the municipality owed no duty of care to plaintiffs. The court also assessed plaintiffs' other federal and state statutory and common law claims.     

U.S. Supreme Court Affirms Potentially Responsible Parties' Right of Action for Cost Recovery

In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Aviall—that potentially responsible parties (PRPs) are not permitted to seek contribution from other PRPs under CERCLA unless they have been sued or otherwise settled their CERCLA liability—PRPs and the courts have struggled to identify a remedy for those that voluntarily undertake cleanup of contaminated sites. The Atlantic Research decision resolves a conflict among the circuits and clarifies that PRPs voluntarily incurring cleanup costs pursuant to CERCLA, can maintain an action for cost recovery against other PRPs. The authors discuss the current legal landscape regarding actions for cost recovery as presented in Atlantic Research.     

Psychiatric injury and assault the immediate effect ofR. v.Ireland, R. v.Burstow

Conclusion R. v.Ireland marked the emergence of the psychic assault—an assault which does not involve fear of immediate force, where the harm becomes a feature of the assault. This explains why foresight ofsuch harm was required of the defendant by the Court of Appeal inIreland. However, the more recent discussions on assault, by the House of Lords inR. v.Burstow, R. v.Ireland and by the Court of Appeal inR. v.Constanza, have made no reference to the defendant's foresight or to the victim's psychiatric injury. Instead the decisions have focused on the victim's fear of immediate violence. To this extent they have halted the development of the psychiatric assault and preserved the traditional view of assault as the apprehension of immediate unlawful force.     

Pro Rata or Pro Tanto? Why Equity Dictates the Choice Is Not a “Toss Up” in Private Party CERCLA Settlements

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) is extremely complicated. Adding to this complexity is the near impossible task of predicting how settlements will be credited. In most tort cases, courts use the pro tanto approach and give the remaining defendants a dollar-for-dollar credit for settlement amounts received by the plaintiff. However, the trend in CERCLA cases is to forego the pro tanto approach and give the remaining defendants credit for the settling defendants’ proportional, or pro rata, share of the liability. This article examines the two approaches and posits which one is more aligned with the spirit of CERCLA.     

最高人民法院裁判、司法解释的法律地位

The decisions and the legislative interpretations of judicial interpretations of the Supreme Court of China can be considered as a part of Mainland China’s customary law, and carried by decisions and judicial interpretations. Customary law is the very source of its normal force and they are supposed to be an informal source of the law for they have the required characteristics for substantiating customary law. Accordingly, the legislative judicial interpretations and decisions of the Supreme Court that are qualified to be promulgated in the Gazette of the Supreme Court should be standardized by the requisites of customary law and have the quality supposed to be universally fair. Cao Shibing is a senior judge of the Supreme Court of China majoring in civil law, and he was awarded the doctorate of law by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Till now, he has published an amount of academic works, for instance, On Anti-monopoly Law (1996), Resolve of the Problems in the Suretyship Law of China and its Prospect (2001), On Insolvency Law of China (2003), and his translated book in Chinese (1998) —The Death of Contract (originally written by Grant Gilmore in 1995).     

CERCLA Arranger Liability: Town of Islip v. Datre: What Intent is Required?

In Town of Islip v. Datre, the court dismissed a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) claim based on failure to allege that the defendant knew that the waste it disposed of was hazardous. The court based its decision on language in the Supreme Court's decision in Burlington Northern that indicated that to be liable under CERCLA as one who arranged for disposal, there is a knowledge or intent element. This article questions the Datre decision and argues that the “knowledge” required by the Burlington Northern Court is knowledge that the transaction is a disposal, not knowledge that the waste disposed of is hazardous.     

The Troika: The Interlocking Roles of Commission v. Luxembourg and Belgium,Van Gend en Loos and Costa v. ENEL in the Creation of the European Legal Order

Through comparisons with dispute resolution procedures in the North American Free Trade Area's Side Agreements, and with the debate over the direct effect of World Trade Organization obligations in the European legal order, this paper demonstrates that three of the European Court of Justice's most important decisions—Commission v. Luxembourg and Belgium, Van Gend en Loos and Costa v. ENEL—should be understood as combining to reorganise general international law's relationship between the EU Member States by substituting national court application of European obligations for the use of interstate retaliation as an enforcement mechanism, and thus providing the foundations for the EU's distinctive legal order.     

Legal Title to Property May Not Always Result in Liability as an Owner under CERCLA

The meaning of “ownership” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) is not as straightforward as most people believe. Although liability under section 107(a)(1) is imposed upon a current “owner” or operator of a facility, CERCLA provides little guidance because it defines “owner” as “any person owning” a facility. In most cases, the issue of who owns the property or a facility is readily apparent and not controversial; however, this article discusses cases in which courts have been compelled to critically examine the specific facts of the case and state law to determine whether a particular party is an “owner” for purposes of establishing liability under CERCLA.     

最高人民法院裁判、司法解释的法律地位

本文结合审判实践详细分析了最高人民法院司法解释的各种类型及其相应的法律地位,并从对最高人民法院裁判的两种认识——“个案既判力说”和“解释义务说”出发,进一步提出了“习惯法说”,指出最高人民法院的裁判和司法解释中的“立法型”解释可以构成我国以裁判和司法解释为载体的习惯法,它们的普遍效力来源于习惯法并因具有习惯法的品格而成为法律的非正式渊源。基于此,本文主张最高人民法院“立法型”司法解释和值得刊登于公报上的裁判,应尽量以习惯法的构成要求为标准,具备“人们普遍认为它是正确的”品质。     

The Hand Rule and United States v. Carroll Towing Co. Reconsidered

Judge Learned Hand’s opinion in United States v. CarrollTowing Co. (1947) is canonized in the law-and-economics literatureas the first use of cost-benefit analysis for determining negligenceand assigning liability. This article revisits the case in whichthe Hand formula was born and examines whether Judge Hand’sruling in that case would provide correct incentives for efficientlevels of precaution. We argue that the negligence test as usedby Judge Hand is somewhat different from the Hand test as usedby modern law-and-economics theorists. With a game theoreticanalysis of the case, we show that Judge Hand’s negligencetest could in fact produce games with inefficient equilibria,or with liability determinations opposite Judge Hand’s.     

Bowden v. Caldor

Abstract

Using the facts of the Bowden v. Caldorlawsuit in which Bowden alleges the intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and wrongful discharge against his employer, this paper explores the mistreatment at the hands of private security officers and store personnel. This exploration is important because it discusses several issues such as: (1) the racially influenced misconduct of private security officers; (2) the damage awards often awarded to victims of private security misconduct; (3) the effect deceptive practices can have on false confessions, especially those of juveniles; and (4) the abuse of juveniles by private security officers. To curtail abusive practices, the authors recommend that store owners establish more stringent store policies pertaining to handling employees during theft investigations.     

Release of information from Department of Veterans Affairs records--VA. Proposed rule

This document proposes to amend Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regulations governing the confidentiality and release of VA records subject to the Privacy Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (including the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996), and the veterans' records confidentiality statute. The proposed rule sets forth a mechanism for the public to obtain information from the VA. The proposed rule is intended to maximize public availability of VA records to the extent permitted by law and considerations such a personal privacy or law enforcement. Essentially these provisions consist of restatements of statute, interpretations of statute, interpretations of case law, interpretations of Executive Orders, and clarification. The proposed amendments also would implement the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996, court decisions and Executive Branch guidance issued since the regulations were originally published. Further, this document proposes to delegate authority to the Assistant General Counsel for Professional Staff Group IV for making final Departmental decisions on appeals under the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, and 38 U.S.C. 5701 and 5705. This would simplify decision making by allowing the highest level individual with direct responsibility for decision making to issue decisions.     

A Riddle Whose Answer is ‘Tort’: A Reassessment of International News Service v Associated Press

The decision of the US Supreme Court in International News Service v Associated Press (1918) has variously been interpreted as recognising a ‘quasi‐property’ right in ‘valuable intangibles’, such as hot news; as turning on unjust enrichment; or as creating a novel tort of unfair competition by misappropriation. It is suggested that the case is more authentically understood as an incidental result of a process by which the Supreme Court extended the boundaries of tort liability, and the corresponding scope of property protection, in a series of decisions against organised labour. The argument is pursued with reference to the prima facie tort theory of Oliver Wendell Holmes, the American ‘labour injunction’, and the labour law record of the author of the majority opinion in International News, Justice Mahlon Pitney.     

Fog in the Gateway: Brownlie v Four Seasons Holdings Inc

In Brownlie v Four Seasons Holdings Inc, the UK Supreme Court for the first time addressed the meaning of ‘damage’ in the gateway for jurisdiction in tort cases under paragraph 3.1(9)(a) of Practice Direction 6B of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. The issue has proven controversial with a number of first instance decisions asserting an expansive jurisdiction in such cases, departing from the traditional approach. In the event the Court decided the case on other grounds, but the extensive discussion of the issue (on which the Court was divided 3‐2) illustrates the stark divergence of opinion on the proper scope of and approach to the English courts’ adjudicatory authority. This note criticises the views advanced by the majority for endorsing the more expansive interpretation on the grounds that it fails to take account of the legislative history and applies an incomplete conception of justice in justifying its position.     

Wrongful death claims. Harriton v Stephens. [2002] NSWSC 461. Edwards v Blomeley. [2002] NSWSC 460. Waller v James [2002] NSWSC 462

Studdert J in all three cases went to great length to summarise the global judicial position of "wrongful life" claims. He did not, however, examine in great length how or whether "wrongful life" claims or "wrongful birth" claims are reconcilable with tort and common law principles. Although the cases identify the difficulty in assessing and quantifying damages, they do not directly address the strict legal principles which apply in the assessment of damages. The main conclusion of the three judgments was that no duty of care is owed to the plaintiff in these circumstances and, even if a duty could be established, the impossibility of quantifying damages and public policy considerations warrant the rejection of such a claim: "thus conscience does make cowards of us all." The significance of the decisions cannot be understand. The decisions deny recognition of "wrongful life" claims in circumstances where a disabled person has incurred injuries en ventre sa mere (in the mother's womb) as a result of infections contracted by a plaintiff's mother or genetic material passed on by a plaintiff's parents. Some countries have now legislated for the abolition of "wrongful life and birth" suits. In January 2002 the French legislature passed a Bill overturning the "wrongful life" decision of the Cour de Cassation in Perruche (17 November 2000). As the issue now falls for ultimate determination by the French Senate, the French pro-life movement continues to lobby for the prohibition of "wrongful birth" suits as well. Furthermore, eight States in the United States have prohibited either one or both actions and the State of Michigan prohibited both actions in 2001. It is likely that all three cases will be appealed. The appeal in Harriton will re-examine the viability of a "wrongful life" claim in Australia whereas the cases of Edwards and Waller still need to determine the "wrongful birth" claims brought by the plaintiffs' parents. It is likely that the latter two cases will not be determined until the High Court has considered the Queensland "wrongful birth" case of Melchior v Cattanach, expected to be late in 2002.     

Re-Evaluating ‘Best Interests’ in the Wake of Raqeeb v Barts NHS Foundation Trust & Anors

In Raqeeb v Barts NHS Foundation Trust, the latest of a number of cases concerning whether a child can travel abroad for treatment that doctors in the UK do not consider to be in their best interests, the High Court held that the hospital had acted unlawfully by failing to consider the child's rights under EU law when refusing to allow her to travel. Although this derogation could be justified on public policy grounds, as such treatment was, on the facts, in her best interests, no further interference with her rights was justified. In making this finding, the court recognised the ‘stress’ that such a case placed on the best interests test, lending weight to the argument for moving instead to a risk of significant harm threshold for judicial intervention in parental decisions, which better accounts for legitimate differences of value and strikes a better balance under Article 8 ECHR.     

The Proper Purpose Rule as a Constraint on Directors’ Autonomy – Eclairs Group Limited v JKX Oil & Gas plc

The recent case of Eclairs Group Limited v JKX Oil & Gas plc highlights the pressures faced by company directors in change of control situations, in which they may be tempted to take action to prevent or discourage such change. The Supreme Court decision provides important clarity on the scope of the proper purpose rule in these (and other) situations. We explore the implications of different judicial interpretations of the proper purpose rule for the autonomy of directors in their decision‐making. We do this by focusing on the scope of the proper purpose rule, whether a subjective or objective test is employed in the application of the rule and the test for causation where a director is motivated by mixed purposes.     

Sexual Orientation Discrimination after Grant v South-West Trains

In Grant v South-West Trains [1998] ECR I-621, the European Court of Justice implied that, as a general matter, discrimination against an employee on the ground of sexual orientation did not violate Article 141 EC. This article argues that Grant rests on shaky foundations, in that it is conceptually inconsistent with the Court's earlier decision in P v S and Cornwall County Council [1996] ECR I-2143. Furthermore, the scope of Grant has since been qualified by decisions of the European Court of Human Rights – decisions which may well have undermined the status of the case more broadly. However these difficulties are ultimately resolved, the Court of Justice's treatment of sexual orientation discrimination exposes flaws in its approach as a self-proclaimed constitutional court.     

Seven Government Assumptions to Challenge Regarding Natural Resource Damages

Three federal statutes (the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); the Oil Pollution Act (OPA); and the Clean Water Act (CWA), as well as some state-specific statutes, allow for the pursuit of monetary or nonmonetary damages if a release of petroleum products or hazardous substances has resulted in injury to natural resources, such as waterways, wetlands areas, and wildlife, that are held in trust for the public. Placing a monetary value on these priceless resources necessarily involves subjective analysis, but some recent government claims have been for amounts far in excess of what a reasonable analysis of the facts would suggest. These claims have typically calculated monetary damages using unrealistic assumptions. Seven examples of common unrealistic assumptions include ignoring historical baseline contamination, overstating the area of resource injury, exaggerating levels of resource injury, assuming excessive timeframes for resource injury, inflating injured resource values, undervaluing restoration credit, and overstating restoration costs.     

Garland v. Torre and the Birth of Reporter's Privilege

In 1959, Marie Torre of the New York Herald Tribune went to jail rather than reveal who had told her that Judy Garland apparently thought herself to be “terribly fat.” Many reporters derided Torre as a gossip columnist (she was actually the TV columnist) who did not deserve support. But the libel suit that sent her to jail, Garland v. Torre, is more consequential than they imagined. Though Torre lost her appeal, the judge recognized a degree of constitutional protection for newsgathering. Elevated to the Supreme Court of the United States, that judge, Potter Stewart, reiterated his Garland reasoning in a dissenting opinion in Branzburg v. Hayes. Many federal courts then employed the Branzburg dissent or Garland itself to craft a conditional reporter's privilege. In this fashion, Marie Torre helped scores of later reporters avoid jail.