|
|
|
This article discusses the recent decision by the United States Supreme Court in Burlington Northern & Sante Fe Railway Co. v. United States. The Supreme Court continues to redefine the relationship between cost recovery actions under CERCLA § 107(a) and contribution actions under CERCLA § 113(f). Burlington Northern adopts the Restatement (Second) of Torts analysis for determining whether § 107(a) mandates imposition of joint and several liability in a specific case. The author suggests that, after Burlington Northern, advocating a “scorched earth,” all-or-nothing approach to Superfund liability is a risky approach.
©2000-2011 Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP. All rights reserved. This web site is published as a service to our clients, colleagues and others for informational purposes only. These materials should not be considered as, or a substitute for, legal advice and they are not intended to be, nor do they create, an attorney-client relationship.
|
|
