Abstract
ABSTRACTIn 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.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
