Chapter 18: Environmental Law
Answers to Select Case Questions
ETHOD OF ECONOMICS
2. The polluter was found liable under strict liability for abnormally dangerous materials, for
negligence, for trespass, and for nuisance. Compensatory damages were $5.3 million plus
interest. Punitive damages of $7.5 million were assessed due to the gross, willful, and wanton
disregard for human safety. The court found that the polluter has a duty to protect others from
unreasonable harm, so that they could recover for emotional distress, loss of property value, fear
of health hazards due to polluted water supply, and reduction in the quality of life. The appeals
court upheld most of the verdict, ruling that damages may be awarded when plaintiff can prove to
a reasonable medical certainty that injuries were caused by defendant's actions. Mere
possibilities of injury does not suffice. Plaintiffs can recover for fear of cancer and other diseases
given that they established a reasonable medical basis for their fears. Punitive damages could be
imposed because of the willful and wanton behavior of defendant during the dumping of the
chemicals.
4. EPA won in a 5-4 decision. The EPA, like other agencies administering statutes, is entitled to
considerable deference. To uphold the right of EPA to grant such variances (which are all over
the place in terms of who gets to pollute how much), the court need only find that the agency's
understanding of the statute is sufficiently rational to preclude a court from substituting its
judgment for that of the agency. Legislative history did not show an intent of Congress to forbid
variances.
6. Granted. The citizens gave the state the required 60-day notice of the suit and filed the suit
within 120 days of the date the notice was given to the state. The residents allegation that the
river smelled and looked polluted, and that they use the river less for recreational, aesthetic and
commercial purposes because the city violates its NPDES permit, sufficiently alleges injury in fact
to support their standing to bring a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act. The remedy sought
under the Act would redress the residents' injuries resulting from the pollution. The court's remedy
would bring the city into compliance with its NPDES permit so that ARK members could use and
enjoy the waterways without fear of pollution. The fact that the city and the state had entered into
an agreement to bring the facility into compliance does not bar the suit.