Mr. Sunoco Case Study

933 Words4 Pages
Christina Tezen Legal Writing Analytical Essay 9/27/15 Issue: Whether Mr. Sunoco, who owns property that has a gas station which he has never operated but leased, is considered an “owner” under Aberdeen Navigation Law §181(1), and is therefore strictly liable for clean-up costs and potential damages to the neighbors under §181(5), resulting from the underground storage tanks (USTs) leaking, when such leaking has been occurring since the day he purchased the property. Rule: Aberdeen Navigation Law §181(1) articulates that all owners and operators, previous and present, will be considered dischargers for purposes of determining liability, which prevents a defendant from arguing that it is not liable because the discharge occurred prior to its ownership. (Speonk). Although liability under the Navigation Law cannot be…show more content…
Sunoco is probably going to be held strictly liable for the clean-up costs, even though it appears that the leak occurred prior to his purchase of the property. However, as in White, where the present owner was able to sue a previous owner who had actually caused and contributed to the discharge, under §181(1) and §181(5) Mr. Sunoco may be able to apportion his liability. Although there is no definitive time frame as to when the leak occurred, the odds that it occurred the same day Mr. Sunoco purchased the gas station is astronomical. Therefore, it is likely that the USTs have been leaking since Mr. Tesoro was the owner, allowing Mr. Sunoco to sue Mr. Tesoro in strict liability for cleanup costs and damages to the community. Further, Mr. Sunoco may also be able to share liability and sue Lukoil, since Lukoil is the present operator of the gas station and further contributed to the USTs leaking by failing to properly reconcile the UST measurements and concealing this information from Mr.
Open Document