Question

The Singh Real Estate Company sells vacant land to Sanchez, who rents it to Grimm. Grimm opens a paint shop on it. The Swall Paint Company delivers toxic paint to Grimm, but spills it during unloading.

a. Is Singh a potentially responsible party (PRP)?

b. Is Swall a PRP?

c. Is Sanchez a PRP?

Questions “d” through “g” relate to common law causes of action:

d. Should Swall be held liable for trespass at Grimm’s Paint Shop?

e. Should Swall be held liable for nuisance at Grimm’s?

f. Should Swall be held liable for negligence at Grimm’s?

g. Should Swall be held liable for strict liability for the spill at Grimm’s?

Answer 1

A) Singh sold the land to the Sanchez, so there is no more ownership of Singh on that land so Singh is not a PRP

b) Swall is the paint company that delivers toxic paint so he is a PRP.

c)Sanchez is the owner of that who leased that land to Grimm so he is also the one of the PRP.

d) From d to g is coming under person section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), for response costs, incurred and to be incurred by the United States not inconsistent with NCP.

yes/No, Swall should not be held liable for trespass at Grimm's paint shop as it was with/with out the concern of Grimm.

e) Yes, Swall should be held liable for nuisance at Grimm’s because while delivering he spilled it over.

f) Yes, Swall should be held liable for negligence at Grimm’s because of its poor delivery.

g) Yes, Swall should be held liable for strict liability for the spill at Grimm’s