United States v. MacDonald & Watson Waste Oil Co.
933 F.2d 35 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'responsible corporate officer' doctrine, which imposes criminal liability for strict liability public welfare offenses, cannot be used to satisfy the 'knowledge' element of a felony statute. While a corporate officer's position and prior awareness of similar violations constitute circumstantial evidence from which a jury may infer knowledge, this doctrine does not create a conclusive presumption that relieves the prosecution of its burden to prove the defendant knew the facts of the specific offense charged.
Facts:
- Master Chemical Company discovered its underground storage tank for the chemical toluene was leaking, contaminating the surrounding soil.
- The Estate of Moses Weinman, which owned Master Chemical, hired MacDonald & Watson Waste Oil Co. to excavate and dispose of the toluene-contaminated soil.
- Frances Slade, an employee of MacDonald & Watson, handled a contract specifying that the work involved removing and disposing of 'contaminated soil and toluene'.
- Faust Ritarossi, another MacDonald & Watson employee, supervised the transportation of the contaminated soil to a disposal site known as the 'Poe Street Lot'.
- The Poe Street Lot, operated by MacDonald & Watson, had a permit held by Narragansett Improvement Co. (NIC) that authorized disposal of liquid hazardous wastes, but not solid hazardous wastes like toluene-contaminated soil.
- Eugene K. D'Allesandro was the President, owner, and a 'hands-on' manager of MacDonald & Watson.
- D'Allesandro had previously been warned on two separate occasions that his company had illegally received toluene-contaminated soil, in violation of its permit.
- There was no direct evidence presented that D'Allesandro had actual knowledge of the specific shipments of contaminated soil from Master Chemical.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States brought a multi-count indictment against MacDonald & Watson, NIC, D'Allesandro, Ritarossi, and Slade in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.
- The charges included violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
- Following a jury trial, D'Allesandro was convicted on two counts of knowingly transporting hazardous waste to an unpermitted facility.
- The other defendants were also convicted on various counts.
- D'Allesandro, as appellant, along with the other defendants, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 'responsible corporate officer' doctrine permit a conviction of a corporate officer under a statute expressly requiring a 'knowing' violation, such as RCRA § 3008(d)(1), without proof that the officer had actual knowledge of the specific illegal acts charged?
Opinions:
Majority - Levin H. Campbell
No. The 'responsible corporate officer' doctrine cannot substitute for the government's burden to prove a defendant's actual knowledge of the specific facts constituting the offense when a statute, like RCRA, expressly includes 'knowingly' as an element of the crime. The court distinguished this felony RCRA violation from the strict liability misdemeanor offenses in United States v. Dotterweich and United States v. Park, where the doctrine originated. Those statutes lacked an explicit scienter requirement. Here, RCRA is a felony statute that explicitly requires proof of knowledge. The trial court's jury instruction was erroneous because it created a 'mandatory presumption' of knowledge, allowing the jury to convict D'Allesandro based on his status as a responsible officer who was aware of past, similar violations, without finding he knew about or was willfully blind to the specific Master Chemical shipments. While an officer's position and prior warnings are relevant circumstantial evidence from which a jury may infer knowledge, the instruction improperly allowed this to be a substitute for proving an essential element of the crime.
Analysis:
This case significantly curtails the application of the 'responsible corporate officer' doctrine in environmental law and other regulatory fields where criminal statutes include a specific mens rea element like 'knowingly.' It establishes that for felonies requiring proof of knowledge, the government cannot rely on an officer's position or general awareness to secure a conviction. This decision reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt and prevents the responsible officer theory from creating a form of strict liability for felony offenses. Consequently, prosecutors in future cases must present more specific evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, to link a corporate officer to the actual criminal act.
