|
.y+ serox IelecOpier 7020 tai- 7-92 ; 3, 09pro -
<br /> i
<br /> I
<br /> Daily Appellate Repon Tnursda ,
<br /> nursday, July 2, 1992 .�,�Y?
<br /> 198Q &am the fact that it did not occur after 1980, If (9th Cir, 1990 re
<br /> the plaintiffs cannot make this most ) ( (erring to 1)trea t t�cogn;
<br /> the plaintiffs cannot basic showing,then that have been adopted in vtiligi's jurisdictions),
<br /> Prove that piaindtl$ were not the alternative liability "innocent
<br /> solo cause of the cantsmination. As a result, th# trial however,
<br /> Will occur in two stages, The first stage of the trial Wil! deendant can y "� w �M se to �f e�� t
<br /> determine whether any of the leaka,�e oce d Y and it is not jtossiiyie to determine yt,� Is A culpable
<br /> sad p�titt"a injury, the burden shifts 10 °X��ta t
<br /> the time when the propertyyy� prior to the defendants to prove they did not cause the injury. Plaintiff loll
<br /> plaintiffs. The second stae of the trials will dpto 1h ( 8�; Secan era v
<br /> each of the owner/operator defendants with the ) 33 Cal.2d 80. !99 F.2d I Re>�'genx.
<br /> d,enterprise liability»if a plalnda M
<br /> Opportunity tO shift liability to the remaining defendants, shift rov to thata an membre 'rers thatindustryto��, the bluden de� the
<br /> d. Pt i tiffs M t not supply the specific; Pro a they did ' r&..
<br /> ——. � at L tam, on product thtuc� the �; the
<br /> rot ed tl h
<br /> le
<br /> f ndan proung
<br /> w E ..,;��s 11 v, I.i Di[ 345 F. Supp 3 3� � dve li
<br /> ne
<br /> §9&m� lain ' fs Thi ). Third, market share liability-- whore It is Wdously, (;
<br /> Con rn sen Ig the nsfer f im ible far the pl�tiff to piove which mcanber of eruct of a
<br /> Y ):Q lain 'ifs. Fah en ,—SZ �e market was responsible for flit injury,Bch nterstba plaintiff mu,
<br /> e i � � of the martcet is respgiible f44 a MMts8n of the CO';#Ad(3
<br /> fen pwn�d o_ recovery matching its share of the market. ,g defendant ca
<br /> S&dell 1, tsbott Iib,, 26 Calf
<br /> S8$, I53 (�, R 164. The chi
<br /> >3ven if the plaintiffs prove that the contamination Inc,�rP,2d 924 E•R ulb A A plaintiff nt
<br /> .1 Il,449 U.S, 912 (1980). tlability in a,
<br /> occurred prior to the trttrisfer of the Property to the -
<br /> plaintiffs,h0wt;ver, it will still not be known "When the issue nDespite t a nu ble iso pinions written on the defendant et
<br /> P esors, neither plalnt�ffs two!'titters f
<br /> contamination occurred."1 In rCSolviilg this Question,the nor defendant$ the a case that involves the factual and�
<br /> COMMutive Ownership of the property and operation of setting of this case-specifically,consxutive ownership
<br /> the gas station by the defendants Mises a signifir„snt and consecutive o
<br /> Issue of evidentiary burdens __ whether the plaintiffs independent msearOPemdbn. Likewise, the Court's
<br /> �duced such a cam.
<br /> must show (I) that Specific amounts of contamination Although there has been alair atri�Ountt of debate abouthe R
<br /> occurred while exh. defendant owned Or operated the the enterprise liability and market share liability codit
<br /> property or (2) that the contamination occurred during theories, the Court is unaware of Jany jurisdiction that Restatement
<br /> defendants' collective ownership and operadon of the has rejected alternative liability when all requirtnents
<br /> Property. Importantly, the second alternative results in are met. , _t 0161 tic When
<br /> a shifting of the burden of proof from the plaintiffs to atian, 59, F. Supp. 740, 826 ($.DN.Y. 1984) hour
<br /> the defendants, (Weinstein. l.) ("Nonaof lthe co'tarts ttranslderirrg the d
<br /> Tho defendants argue that the Pu^st alternative is own Is
<br /> theory have] rejected alte6ative laabliq wheri Ali the
<br /> the appropriate&tit 2rd,They eantend that the Rima#iffs defendaants were beton the Ctitrn."),�'itase juris<Iittiottis burden
<br /> should not prevail, even if the plaintiffs can prove that that have ant adopted alta rwdve lability simply have has not
<br /> some or even 9H of the Contamination occumd prior to not addressed the question;of whether��ther plaintiffs must The policy l
<br /> the G"ansfer of the property to the plaintiffs, unless the prove individual c&usation despite the Problems posed requirement
<br /> plaintiffs prove that contamination occurred during a by multiple possible tortfeasors. Sed j wrongd
<br /> specific defendatit'a ownership or operation. Cutter OM
<br /> Bio_1�al, i� 91;1 P.2d 374, 376 (M Cir. upon the ent
<br /> Specifically,the defendants rely on language in ni ed 1990)("Hawaii Supreme C.ottrt is neither adopted nor merely bete,
<br /> tel j nsery i n QW19M Q.,619 F.Supp. 162 rejected any of these dietaries,jl); Ie y, IMIS resulting bar
<br /> (D.C.Mo. 1985),which requires proof that"a par ficulur Healthcare c Com., 721 F. Stapp. 8D, 94 A Md. 1989) prove which
<br /> generator's waste_ "has contributed or is contributing' CAlternative liability has ''not been adopted by any (Second)of I
<br /> to a situation which may present an imminent and Maryland appellatecourt"),;Tae Court thus draws upas to the genart
<br /> substantial endangerment to health or the environml these theories, the reasons behind them. and the mum actors
<br /> Jd., at 199. In essence, the defendants argue that the legislative history of RCRA'to develop federal corRmoo Otho tar
<br /> plaintiffs' inability to pinpoint the contamination to a law. p1si �1i
<br /> Specific time period should free the owner/operalor then, but Vdefendants of liability. For the reasons set out in the (i) ALTI;RNATIYF I.IpBIl:,T1'y Restatement
<br /> following pages, the Court does not agree.
<br /> mphuls ad,
<br /> RCRA noticeably has not addressed the issue of nc birth of alterrui dve t�billty is 13w�Y whew"there�M,j
<br /> Afro burden of proof to a complicated such � thio. traced to tt* seminra case$of to lv " `4 ...
<br /> suit x:..33__ ora actor flea
<br /> one.involving Metal potential tortfeasors. Bccausc the Cal.2d 80,199 P.2d 1 (1948)'M4 m
<br /> diciat doveto �,plaintiff was of Torts, $ 4;
<br /> A omen# of federal common-law is injured when his two hunting companions negligently
<br /> APPropriate;to fill 4n the gaps of'a'fcdeial statute' the, tired their guns toward hir4. onlyll one of the bullets (b)PU
<br /> Court must develop federal common law to resolve this struck plaintiff, but it was;;not possible to ascertain Dlp,�q
<br /> unaddr%sed issue, which defendant fired that; shot that hit him. 71m
<br /> Several possible alrernatives have beers developed California Supreme Court held that both defendants had The set
<br /> to deal with the problem of several possible tortfeasors. been negligent and shifted 16 burl to the defrridants prevail in a
<br /> ; Q ith v+Cutter loin ;cal tn�, 911 F.2d 374, 376 to prove they had not injured plaintiff, "the court
<br /> ,
<br />
|