Haber Wood Products Ltd. had a permit from the provincial government to extract
ID: 327083 • Letter: H
Question
Haber Wood Products Ltd. had a permit from the provincial government to extract water from a nearby river for manufac-turing purposes. It was also permitted to discharge the water, which now contained harmless chemicals, into the river. The discharge was continuously monitored for other contaminants to ensure that the discharge only contained the permitted harmless chemicals. MD Manufacturing Inc. also had a permit to draw water from the river, and under its permit it was entitled to discharge certain non-poisonous chemicals into the river. The discharge water was also monitored. While the chemical discharge from each plant was harmless, and the combination was non-toxic to humans, higher concentrations of the resulting mixture were toxic to fish. Downstream from the two plants, Olsen operated a fish hatchery and fish farm. One day he discovered his entire stock of fish dead or near death. He immediately contacted the government ministry to determine the cause of his loss. Discuss, the issues raised in this case. How would liability (if any) for Olsen’s loss be determined?
Explanation / Answer
Write this in this way:
According to the law, the responsibility of the pollution of the environment lies on the person causing environmental damage. This means that the polluter of the owner of the things causing pollution remains liable for the covering the cost of the cleanup and pay any damages caused. It encourages compliance by holding directors and officers of the companies responsible for any pollution violations by their companies.
The issue is that in this case both the companies are obeying the law and fulfilling the environmental regulations. Hence, setting the liabilities will be a problem. However, in cases where setting the liability is not.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.