State is suing ex-dry cleaners
Most are elderly and long out of the business, but they are accused of polluting Chico’s water.
By Gary Delsohn – Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Monday, April 28, 2003
You’ve GOT to be kidding me!
Ok, let me get this straight. These people are being sued for following standard operating procedure years ago before they ever really knew the water was being polluted. That really makes no sense. So because something happened in say 1962 that they didn’t really know much about until 1988 they can be sued? Ridiculous. The most ridiculous part is that couple being liable for something that happened when they didn’t even own the damn building. That’s like asking all former big industrial companies in the 1800s and early 1900s to pay for all the damage that they caused, stuff that we are just finding out about now. Yeah, way to go California.
Exactly… I know there is some law that says you can’t be guilty of a crime if you did the crime before a law passed to make it a crime. I searched google but can’t find that passage.
Let me see if I’ve got this straight. Let’s sue someone’s 87 year old widowed granny out of her home because 35 years ago her husband owned a dry cleaning business?
I think (and of course IANAL) that Quasimodem makes an excellent point about malice aforethought. In order to win these suits the plaintiffs should be required to prove that the defendants willfully broke any laws or local zoning codes.
It also pisses me off that even if the judge ultimately finds in favor of the defendants they will have had to spend thousands of dollars defending themselves against this crap!
It’s actually a part of the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 9:
IANAL also, but on the face of it, this would appear to get the warehouse owner off the hook. The basis of the state’s lawsuit as quoted in the article is the federal Superfund law passed in 1980. And the pollution from the warehouse allegedly all hppened before 1972.
But lawyers make a living obfuscating the facts for political benefit. The quotes from the state attorney that “someone has to pay for it” and drawing the (already noted as ridiculous) analogy to murder are telling. The state is going after these people because they are politically powerless.
Just more fun times in the People’s (Non)Republic of California.
I don’t think they can be charged with a criminal act because of the ex post facto law; but civil suits are another matter. If you’ll allow a slight hijack…
People have been building airplanes in this country for 100 years. For a long time, aircraft manufacturers could be held liable for failures in aircraft they built decades ago. Theoretically, Piper could be sued if a wing failed in a J-3 Cub because of corrosion, because they failed to apply a modern corrosion-resistant coating to the airplane when it was built in, say, 1946. How could they have applied a substance that didn’t exist? They couldn’t. But they were responsible anyway. Imagine if General Motors could be sued because they failed to install airbags in a 1957 Chevy before it rolled off the production line, and someone was killed in a crash in 2003 who otherwise would have lived! It’s absurd. And yet, such a state of affairs existed until very recently. I’m not sure of the date, but I think it was in the early-1990s when Congress finally passed a law that says aircraft manufacturers could not be held liable for “design flaws” in aircraft over 18 years old. (Still, would we expect GM to be held liable for a “flaw” in a vehicle they made in 1985?)
More on CERCLA can be found on EPA’s website here. (Not that I’m saying that California is suing under CERCLA, but I’m sure the state statute is pretty similar.)
Exactly! Not to mention that the people being accused WERE following the regs as they stood at the time, and it has NOT been proven which dry cleaners contributed to the actual contamination.
So the AG’s analogy was really lame. Like saying that if someone is merely ACCUSED of murder (whether or not there’s any proof) then they should be prosecuted as if they were guilty.
I’ve been in the business of assisting people with the correct disposal procedures re: EPA, state and local regs for going on 15 years, MOST people once they learn their responsibilities are more than happy to follow suit.
Generally the people who are coming forward for assistance aren’t the ones commiting illegal dumping. The ones commiting the crimes are the ones leaving the leaking drums in the middle of the woods with no identifiable markings.
Also do any of you Lawyers or law experts know if the courts can actually try to get money out of these folks’ descendants?
Enviro law (except that which is outlined in the CFRs) is not my area of expertise, helping folks adhere to CFR and proper handling of the hazwaste and hazmat is.
CanvasShoes, going soley on my past experience as a debt collector:
The families themselves cannot be held liable for the monies, but the estates could. If the families spent the monies from the estates of said parents, without checking for debts, they could potentially be sued for that amount.
So the descendants should have checked for a debt that they didn’t know existed because the violation occurred before it WAS a violation, and therefore can be liable for the damages…why? Because their telepathy wasn’t in good working order? Because they forgot to fix their time machine and go back and tell Granny and Gramps 40 years ago that they should change their ways now before the grandkids lose everything they inherited?
Man, the legal system in this country is SCREWED if this one comes to pass.
IF the lawsuit is settled before the defendants die, AND when they die there are monies to be divided, it is my experience with Estate Law that debts must be paid off. The same with hospital bills, electric bills and other debts.
I wasn’t answering the original OP. This lawsuit is obviously frivolous and demonstrates much of what is wrong in the US today and should be thrown right out, with a stern warning to all the attorneys involved for the state.
I think butrs was complaining/commenting on the OP, not your post Jaade, but thanks for the info, that does make sense.
And you know how reporters are, they leave out half the facts and then rarely give follow up reports. I got the impression from the article that they’d be able to actually go after the families themselves.
