United States v. Union Corp.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
277 F. Supp. 2d 478 (2009)
- Written by Abby Keenan, JD
Facts
The United States brought a lawsuit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in federal district court against potentially responsible parties (PRPs) (plaintiffs), including Union Corp., to recover cleanup costs for a site contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The PCBs were released during the recycling of electrical transformers at the site. The PRPs filed a contribution claim as third-party plaintiffs against Monsanto (defendant), the manufacturer of the PCBs, even though the PRPs did not receive the PCB-laden materials directly from Monsanto. The PRPs raised several state-law claims, including strict products liability, strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity, and trespass. Monsanto filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that (1) Monsanto was not liable under a theory of strict products liability, because its PCB-containing products were not unfit for their intended purposes; (2) Monsanto was not liable under a theory of strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity, because it did not engage in any abnormally dangerous activity; and (3) Monsanto was not liable under a trespass theory, because it did not intentionally cause its product to be deposited at the site. The federal district court applied Pennsylvania law in addressing the state-law claims.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Giles, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.