United States v. Mizhir
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
106 F. Supp. 2d 124 (2000)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
George Mizhir (defendant) operated a Massachusetts-based oil-delivery business. Mizhir delivered oil with his oil truck. A mechanic at Bergevin’s Enterprises, Incorporated (Bergevin’s) serviced Mizhir’s truck. The mechanic told Mizhir not to drive the truck because the truck’s brakes were unsafe. Mizhir crashed his truck into a house in New Hampshire the next day. The crash resulted in a spill of 3,000 gallons of oil. The oil ran into the Minnewawa Brook. Mizhir did not try to remove the oil. The next day, the homeowner’s insurance company that covered the damaged house retained Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Incorporated (Clean Harbors) to provide emergency oil removal from the house. Also, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services contacted the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about the spill. The second day after the spill, an EPA coordinator assessed the scene. Oil had been seeping into the brook, so the EPA contacted the United States Coast Guard for immediate funding of the cleanup. The EPA contracted with Clean Harbors to clean up the oil that had seeped into the brook. Cleanup finished August 4, 1995. The federal government (plaintiff) sought reimbursement for the oil-removal costs, but Mizhir refused to pay. The government filed a lawsuit against Mizhir to recover the cleanup costs on May 22, 1998. Mizhir claimed that the oil spill was the fault of Bergevin’s and that the statute of limitations had run. The government filed a motion for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gorton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.