Supreme Court of the United States
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States
May 4, 2009556 U.S. 599
Summary
Justice Stevens, writing for eight Justices, held that Shell was not liable as an arranger under CERCLA because arranger liability requires intentional steps to dispose of a hazardous substance, and Shell's knowledge of incidental spills during delivery did not establish that intent. The Court also held that the record reasonably supported allocating 9% of the remediation costs to the Railroads rather than imposing joint and several liability. It reversed the Ninth Circuit's judgment and remanded. Justice Ginsburg dissented alone. She would have upheld Shell's arranger liability because Shell controlled delivery arrangements that routinely caused spills, and would have returned the cases to the District Court to allow the parties a fair opportunity to address its independently developed apportionment theories.
Holding
- Whether Shell qualified as an arranger under 42 U.S.C. §9607(a)(3).. Shell was not liable as an arranger because the facts did not establish that it intended disposal of any portion of the product during delivery.
- Whether the Railroads established a reasonable basis for apportioning their responsibility for the contamination.. The record reasonably supported the District Court's allocation of 9% of the remediation costs to the Railroads.
Docket 07-1601
Cited authorities
- 42 U.S.C. §§9607
- 42 U.S.C. §9607
- 94 Stat. 2767
- 42 U.S.C. §§9601
- 54 FR 41027
- 42 U.S.C. §9604
- 42 U.S.C. §6903
- 42 U.S.C. §9607
Cited by
- City of West Sacramento v. R & L Business Management
- City of West Sacramento v. R & L Business Management
- Lamothe v. Steinert
- Memc Pasadena, Inc. v. Goodgames Industrial Solutions, LLC
- Usor Site Prp Group v. a & M Contractors, Inc.
- United States v. Michael Wright — Davis, J., Concurring
- Crescent Mine, LLC v. Bunker Hill Mining Corporation; and Placer Mining Corporation (d/b/a New Bunker Hill Mining Co.)
- Parsons v. All Mailroom Staffing