Question

You own Catherine’s Chemicals, specializing in producing chemicals for later use in industrial cleaning solutions. Your company has a 100% safety record for both employees and the public.

Indeed, within the industry, Catherine’s has a reputation for taking extra steps to protect all concerned.

Despite all precautions, including those beyond industry standards, a pipe bursts for unexplained reasons, spilling a dangerous chemical that will adversely affect a nearby waterway. A subsequent inspection shows that there was no negligence involved in this accident.

Underline strict liability doctrine, Catherine’s is almost certain to be liable for any and all environmental damage. Is this good public policy?

Answer 1

This is a good public policy because the damage to the environment is going to happen in this case only because of the business run by our firm Catherine's Chemicals. Even though we have taken all the measures to avoid any damage to society and the environment by taking extra steps, we have the moral responsibility for the accident. It would be unethical if we try to avoid liability by showing the precautions we have taken. Public policy is intended to protect the public from injuries. The environmental damage caused through the pipe burst will affect the public to a great extent and the manufacturer is in a better position to cover such liability. But most of the manufacturers may try to escape from liability in the absence of strict doctrine. Hence use of strict liability doctrine to ensure public safety is a good public policy.