United States v. Park

Supreme Court of United States
421 U.S. 658 (1975)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), a corporate officer can be held strictly liable for a criminal violation if they stood in a 'responsible relation' to the prohibited conduct, meaning they had the authority and responsibility within the corporation to prevent or correct the violation but failed to do so.

Facts:

John R. Park was the President and Chief Executive Officer of Acme Markets, Inc., a large national retail food chain with hundreds of retail outlets and numerous warehouses.
In April 1970, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent a letter to Park advising him of insanitary conditions, including rodent infestation, at Acme's Philadelphia warehouse.
In November and December 1971, an FDA inspection of Acme's Baltimore warehouse revealed extensive evidence of rodent infestation and food being held for sale in a building accessible to rodents.
Following the 1971 inspection, the FDA again notified Park by letter of the 'reprehensible conditions' at the Baltimore facility.
A subsequent inspection of the Baltimore warehouse in March 1972 found that while conditions had improved, there was still evidence of rodent activity and contaminated food items.
Park's defense was that he had delegated responsibility for sanitation to dependable subordinates and that he had done all he could have done constructively upon learning of the violations.

Procedural Posture:

The United States Government filed a five-count information in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, charging Acme Markets, Inc. and its CEO, John R. Park, with violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Acme Markets, Inc. pleaded guilty to the charges.
Park pleaded not guilty and was tried before a jury.
The jury in the trial court found Park guilty on all counts.
Park appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the jury instructions were erroneous.
The United States Government (petitioner) sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, can a corporate officer be held criminally liable for sanitation violations in a company warehouse based on having a position of authority and responsibility to prevent or correct the violation, even without proof of personal participation in or awareness of the specific wrongful acts?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Burger

Yes, a corporate officer can be held criminally liable for violations under these circumstances. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act imposes a high standard of care on individuals in positions of authority whose businesses affect public health. The Court reaffirmed the principle from United States v. Dotterweich, holding that liability does not require 'awareness of some wrongdoing' but attaches to those who have a 'responsible share in the furtherance of the transaction which the statute outlaws.' The government establishes a prima facie case by showing the defendant had, by reason of his corporate position, the responsibility and authority to prevent or correct the violation and failed to do so. This failure provides the necessary causal link. The Act imposes a duty not only to remedy violations but, more importantly, to implement measures to ensure they do not occur. While the defendant can raise the defense of being 'powerless' to prevent the violation, the jury instructions in this case were adequate because they focused on Park's authority and responsible relationship to the unsanitary conditions, not merely his title.

Dissenting - Justice Stewart

No, the conviction should not be affirmed. While the majority correctly states the law that liability requires a breach of a duty of care, the jury instructions in this case were legally insufficient and tautological. The instructions merely asked the jury to determine if Park had a 'responsible relation to the situation' without defining what that relationship entails, effectively allowing the jury to convict if they simply felt he was 'accountable.' This provided no objective legal standard, leaving the jury to its own unguided notions of justice. Such a standardless instruction violates fundamental principles that require the judge to state the law and the jury to apply that law to the facts. The instructions were a 'virtual nullity' and cannot support a criminal conviction, regardless of the defendant's blameworthiness or the social importance of the Act.

Analysis:

This case solidifies and defines the 'responsible corporate officer' doctrine, establishing a broad standard of strict criminal liability for executives in public welfare industries. The decision confirms that liability is not vicarious but stems from the officer's own failure to exercise the authority and foresight required by their position to prevent violations. This precedent places a significant affirmative duty on corporate leaders to ensure compliance systems are not only implemented but are effective, as they cannot simply delegate away their ultimate responsibility for matters affecting public health and safety. Future cases would look to whether an officer had the power to prevent the violation as the key element for liability.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Park (1975)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"