Legal News

Brief questions authority vs. responsibility in corporate officer case

By Richard Binder

Attorneys representing the owners of a business who were sued for environmental violations have petitioned the California Supreme Court to overturn a recent appellate decision they claim is an "unprecedented departure" from prior cases because it unfairly broadens an individual's scope of liability in cases involving the responsible corporate officer doctrine.

The California case involves John Roscoe and his son, Ned, who were sued after their business leaked 3,000 gallons of gasoline where an underground storage tank was located. On Dec. 26, a California Court of Appeal 3d District panel upheld a lower court ruling in finding that both men were strictly liable under the responsible corporate officer doctrine and affirmed $2.5 million in fines.

On Feb. 4, attorneys for Ned Roscoe filed a brief before the California Supreme Court seeking to overturn the ruling. They claim that the decision unfairly holds their client liable based on his authority at the company and not because he was responsible for the violations, as is required under case law.

Read the full NLJ article.

Full post as published by Legal Pad | LA on February 09, 2009 (boomark / email).