by Kirsten E. Small
The Fourth Circuit issued one published opinion yesterday: West Va. Highlands Conservancy v. Huffman, No. 09-1474.
Coal miners in West Virginia (well, everywhere really) are required by the Clean Water Act to control acid mine drainage. When they fail to do so, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection forfeits the mine owner's performance bond and starts remediating the drainage itself.
Or at least, that's the theory. In actuality, WVDEP was allowing acid mine drainage to continue at 18 bond forfeiture sites. The West Virginia Highlands Conservancy sued, claiming that WVDEP was required to obtain a permit for such discharges. The district court agreed based on the very broad language of the CWA, which covers "any addition of any pollutant ... from any point source" by "any person" (defined to include states and municipalities).
The district court held that WVDEP was required to obtain a permit under the plain statutory language. On appeal, WVDEP resorted to playground rhetoric, arguing that the CWA shouldn't apply to it because: (1) it's a state agency ("the rules don't apply to me"); (2) it didn't cause the discharges in the first place ("he did it"); and (3) application of the CWA to it would produce "absurd" results ("it's not fair").
The Fourth Circuit rejected these "policy" arguments and affirmed.
Showing posts with label Statutory Construction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Statutory Construction. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
South Carolina Court of Appeals holds that violating mandatory seatbelt law is not evidence of negligence.
By Manton Grier, Jr.
In Sims v. Gregory, Opinion No. 4649 (Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2010), the Court of Appeals held that violating a mandatory seatbelt statute was not evidence of negligence. In that case, a minor child was injured when the car her father was driving was hit by a third party. The child’s mother sued the father. Although the father was not responsible for the wreck, the mother argued that the father was responsible for some of the damages because he failed to ensure that his daughter was secured by a shoulder harness in addition to a lap belt.
The case was decided strictly on the basis of statutory interpretation. Although Section 56-5-6520 requires a driver to secure with proper seatbelts all passengers under 18, Section 56-5-6540(C) states that a “violation of this article is not negligence per se or contributory negligence, and is not admissible as evidence in a civil action.” The court further held that the duty to apply a seatbelt to a minor is only a statutory, and not common-law, duty. Thus, the clear meaning of Section 56-5-6540(C) precludes private right of actions under the mandatory seatbelt law.
In Sims v. Gregory, Opinion No. 4649 (Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2010), the Court of Appeals held that violating a mandatory seatbelt statute was not evidence of negligence. In that case, a minor child was injured when the car her father was driving was hit by a third party. The child’s mother sued the father. Although the father was not responsible for the wreck, the mother argued that the father was responsible for some of the damages because he failed to ensure that his daughter was secured by a shoulder harness in addition to a lap belt.
The case was decided strictly on the basis of statutory interpretation. Although Section 56-5-6520 requires a driver to secure with proper seatbelts all passengers under 18, Section 56-5-6540(C) states that a “violation of this article is not negligence per se or contributory negligence, and is not admissible as evidence in a civil action.” The court further held that the duty to apply a seatbelt to a minor is only a statutory, and not common-law, duty. Thus, the clear meaning of Section 56-5-6540(C) precludes private right of actions under the mandatory seatbelt law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
