United States v. Monsanto Co

858 F.2d 160 (1988)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In 1972, Seidenberg and Hutchinson leased a tract of land to the Columbia Organic Chemical Company. The lease was a verbal month to month lease, and COCC used the land to store raw and finished materials in a warehouse. COCC expanded its business to include recycling and used the site as a waste storage and disposal facility. COCC incorporated SCRDI and then transferred its waste handling business to SCRDI. Between 1976 and 1980, SCRDI haphazardly deposited more than 7,000 55-gallon drums of waste and eventually the drums rusted and the contents oozed into the ground. This generated noxious fumes, fires, and explosions. A crisis occurred when a toxic cloud was generated when the chemicals reacted with rainwater. Twelve responding firemen were hospitalized. Another explosion and fire resulted from improper storage. EPA inspected the site in 1980 and concluded that the site was a major fire hazard. The U.S filed suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 6973, before the effective date of CERLA, which was on December 11, 1980. The suit only sought injunctive relief. During the litigation, the government identified a number of waste generators and notified them of their potential liability for the cost of cleanup under 107(a) of CERLA. Settlement agreements were reached with 12 of the offsite generators. Ds in this suit declined to settle. Evidence was gathered from the initial cleanup of the site that indicated the three remaining Ds had supplied waste material to the site and that several hazardous substances contained in the waste from these Ds had found its way into the soil, and sediment of the site. The government then amended its suit in 1982 to allege that the remaining waste providers and the owners of the land were liable for the costs expended in the cleanup of the site. The owners claimed they were innocent absentee landlords and the waste generators claimed that none of their waste was responsible for the hazards at the site. Everybody moved for a summary judgment. The district court granted liability against Ds based on CERLA; none had presented sufficient evidence to support an affirmative defense under 107(b). The court also held the harm indivisible and held that all Ds were jointly and severally liable. The innocent landowner defense of the owners was rejected, and the specific proof of causation for the waste generators was rejected as well. All Ds appealed.