Question.621 - Please post an original discussion as well as rebuttals and support of the postings of others; offering a well reasoned and articulate discussions including analysis of the relevant facts, legal issues, statutes and precedent, and the rationale for your arguments on the legal implications of the following scenario: Gomer recently purchased and owns GIT-N-GO a convenience store and gasoline station in the city of Lizard Lick. The gasoline pumps were connected to underground gasoline storage tanks. One of the tanks had developed a leak at its top which allowed water to enter into the tank during rain storms. Following a customer complaint, Gomer called in his brother-in-law Sid (a bartender) to assess the situation. They took a sample from the tank and put a match to it and it did not ignite so they determined to effect repairs to the tank by first emptying the tank. They pumped out the contents into a storm drain and a sewer system pipe. Through the storm drain the gasoline and water mix from the tank flowed into a creek, killing the fish and causing the city to have to clean up the water in the creek. Through the sewer system the gasoline and water mix from the tank flowed into the sewage treatment plant, causing the city to evacuate the plant along with two public schools on either side adjoining the sewer plant property. The city of Lizard Lick sent Gomer a notice that it would be filing charges and seeking both damages and criminal penalties for knowingly committing environmental violations. Gomer claims that he relied on Sid and had believed with all his heart that the tank was full of just water and that he was discharging only water into the drain and sewer pipe.
Answer Below:
In xxxx case xxxxx is xxx owner xx a xxxxxxxx station xxx a xxxxx named xxxxxxxx located xx the xxxx of xxxxxx Lick xxxxx was x connection xxx in xxx gasoline xxxx to xxx underground xxxxxxx tanks xxx as xxxx one xx the xxxxx was xxxxx to xx leaked xx the xxx Due xx the xxxx in xxx tank xxxxxx heavy xxxx storms xxxxx enters xxxxxx the xxxx Therefore x customer xxxxx a xxxxxxxxx which xxxxx handles xx by xxxxxxx his xxxxxxxxxxxxxx who xx a xxxxxxxxx to xxxx upon xxx issue xxx brother-in-law xxxxx to xxxxxxx the xxxxx through x sample xxxx did xxx work xxx rather xx brought xxx many xxxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxx in xxx entire xxxx that xxx affected xxx entire xxxxx system xxxxxxxxxx the xxxxxxxxxxx of xxxxxx Lick xxxxx a xxxxxx to xxxxx for xxxxxxxxx environmental xxxxxxx with xxx charges xx damage xxx criminal xxxxxxxxx While xxxxx tries xx justify xxxxxxx by xxxxxxxx that xx was xxxxxxxxxx relied xx his xxxxxxxxxxxxxx and xx had xx such xxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxx any xxxxxxxxxxxxx norms xx the xxxxx scenario xx is xxxxxxx that xxxxx is xxxxxxxxxxx for xxx entire xxxxx because xx was xxx business xxx he xxx supposed xx handle xx through xxxxxxxx strategies xxxxxx he xxxxxx his xxxxxxxxxxxxxx who xxxxxxxx has xxxx ideas xx dealing xxxx such xxxxx because xx is x bartender xx profession xxxxx should xxxx taken xxx help xx an xxxxxx who xxx experience xx resolving xxxxxx in xxxxxxx tank xx shows xxxx Gomer xxx not xxxx the xxxxx seriously xxx because xx his xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxx he xxx violated xxxxxxxxxxxxx norms xxx posed xxxxxx to xxx entire xxxx Therefore xxxxx is xxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxxx for xxx negligent xxxMore Articles From Business Law
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
