Who is liable for cleaning up oil spills that occur in navigable waters of the United States? The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 provides some but not all of the answers. Ultimately, the final answer may depend upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the oil spill, along with the specific terms of contractual agreements entered into by the potentially responsible parties.
Recently, a case that involved determining the financial responsibility for oil spill cleanup costs, Citgo Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., came before the United States Supreme Court. In that case, the Court considered the terms of the charter party and, specifically, the meaning of the “safe berth” clause contained in the charter party, as it related to liability and duty.
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (beginning at 33 U.S.C. section 2701) was passed after the Exxon-Valdez oil spill in 1989. This Act generally provides that certain responsible parties are liable for cleanup costs and resulting damages in the event of an oil spill. The Act creates a fund, financed by an oil tax (known as the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund), to help pay for cleanup costs. While the Act imposes cleanup requirements on responsible parties regardless of fault, it also limits the liability of some responsible parties who comply with its provisions, and allows for reimbursement from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for certain cleanup costs.
Citgo Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co.
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 also allows a responsible party to sue a third party for cleanup costs, based on the third party’s alleged fault. In law, the concept of fault, as it informs responsibility, often depends, at least in part, on the concept of duty. This concept of duty was the crux of the issue considered by the United States Supreme Court in Citgo Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co.
In Citgo Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., the safe berth clause at issue commonly required the charterer to designate a safe berth for the loading and unloading of cargo. The Court was called upon to determine the duty imposed by this clause: was it a higher duty that essentially imposed a warranty of safety or was it a lesser duty that required the charterer to use due diligence in choosing a safe berth?
The United States Supreme Court held that the safe berth clause imposed the higher duty, so that the charterer would be responsible for an unsafe berth regardless of its due diligence. The Court found that the plain language of the charter party required this result.To learn more about The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 or the Supreme Court’s decision in Citgo Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., or if you have questions pertaining to the provisions of a charter party, contact the experienced maritime lawyers at the Kolodny Law Firm.
Alan Kolodny is committed to representing injured clients in Texas and throughout the United States. Alan earned his B.A. from Rice University and his J.D. from Southern Methodist University.
He focuses his practice on representing plaintiffs in personal injury cases involving the following matters: maritime and offshore accidents, including those under the Jones Act; automobile and 18-wheeler truck accidents; and industrial site accidents, work-related accidents, and claims for injured railroad workers under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act.
Loading...