Edward Hanousek worked for Pacific and Arctic Railway and Navigation Company (P&

Question

Edward Hanousek worked for Pacific and Arctic Railway and Navigation Company (P&A) as a roadmaster of the White Pass & Yukon Railroad in Alaska. Hanousek was responsible "for every detail of the safe and efficient maintenance and construction of track, structures and marine facilities of the entire railroad," including special projects. One project was a rock quarry, known as "6-mile," above the Skagway River. Next to the quarry, and just beneath the surface, ran a high-pressure oil pipeline owned by Pacific and Arctic Pipeline, Inc. P&A's sister company. When the quarry's backhoe operator punctured the pipeline, an estimated 1,000-5,000 gallons of oil were discharged into the river. Hanousek was charged with negligently discharging a harmful quantity of oil into a navigable water of the United States in violation of the criminal provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions.

1. Did Hanousek have the required mental state (mens rea) to be convicted of a crime? Why or why not?

2. Which theory discussed in the chapter would enable a court to hold Hanousek criminally liable for violating the statute regardless of whether he participated in, directed, or even knew about the specific violation?

3. Could the backhoe operator who punctured the pipeline also be charged with a crime in this situation? Explain.

4. Suppose that at trial, Hanousek argued that he should not be convicted because he was not aware of the requirements of the SWA. Would this defense be successful? Why or why not?

Explanation / Answer

Yes, we can say that Hanousek did have the mental state, he was the officer responsible for the project and the power to prevent the criminal violation rested with him. The officers will be held responsible for the crimes committed by them and the employees under their supervision. Hanousek will be held responsible (as he was responsible for every detail of the “6-mile” quarry project) for the criminally negligent act by puncturing the pipeline by the backhoe operator. Specific violation would be the “Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine. Hanousek will be held responsible (as he was responsible for every detail of the “6-mile” quarry project) for the criminally negligent act by puncturing the pipeline by the backhoe operator. He failed to ensure that no negligent act was done under his supervision; the doctrine will held him directly responsible. The backhoe operator will not be held responsible for the criminal mistake that lead to the accident on the pipeline project. Hanousek as supervisor has the authority to prevent the accident. The sole responsibility comes on to the supervisor. The corporations have specific clauses to prevent employees and rest all responsibility on the supervisors. The defense would not stand a chance in court because he knows that he is dealing with a dangerous device that would potentially be a danger to the public. He would at a minimum be guilty of “strict liability” which would enable him to be convicted of a violation even if he had no knowledge of the illegality of the action.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse E
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.