|
Workers
may be liable for on-the-job negligence
Published 05/25/99
Most
people understand that a worker may be held responsible in a civil
action for his own negligence at work which causes injury to others
or for his knowingly criminal conduct at work. What workers must
also understand is that under certain criminal statutes workers
may be held individually liable for their own negligent conduct
even if conducted within the scope of their employment. Traditionally
for a crime to be committed, the alleged perpetrator would require
a "mens rea", meaning guilty or wrongful purpose. However,
certain actions may result in criminal culpability even though the
actions were done negligently rather than with a criminal intent.
This is known in the law as strict criminal liability. In the case
of USA v. Hanousek, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals upheld as proper the Federal District Court’s instruction
to the jury in the criminal case that Mr. Hanousek could be found
criminally liable for negligently discharging a harmful quantity
of oil into navigable waters of the United States under the Clean
Water Act. After a 20-day trial, the jury convicted Mr. Hanousek
of that crime.
The
criminal charge was a result of an estimate of 1,000 to 5,000 gallons
of heating oil being discharged into the Skagway River in Alaska
when a backhoe struck an unprotected pipeline. Other sections of
the pipeline had been protected during the project, yet when Mr.
Hanousek took over responsibility of the project for his employer,
Pacific & Arctic Railway and Navigation Company, he ceased the
prior practice of protecting the pipeline, thereby permitting the
discharge when the accident occurred.
The
Appellate Court agreed with the trial court that for criminal culpability
there does not need to be a heightened negligence standard and agreed
with the following jury instruction:
"In
order for the defendant Ed Hanousek to be found guilty of negligent
discharge of oil, the government must prove the following elements
beyond reasonable doubt:
1.
The particular defendant caused the discharge of oil;
2.
The discharge of oil was into a navigable waterway of the United
States;
3.
The amount of oil was of a quantity that may be harmful; and
4.
The discharge was caused by the negligence of the particular defendant."
As
a result of the criminal conviction, Mr. Hanousek was sentenced
to six months in prison, six months in a halfway house, and six
months of supervised release. Mr. Hanousek was given a sentence
greater than the minimum because he was a supervisor, a factor which
under Federal Sentencing Guidelines can be taken into account and
was by the sentencing judge.
A very
clear lesson from this case is that a worker does not always have
to have a guilty or wrongful purpose to be found culpable under
certain criminal statute for actions, or inactions, at work. While
a company’s insurance may sometimes help insulate its workers
from the pecuniary ramifications of their negligence, the criminal
penalties of fines are usually excluded from insurance coverage
and such insurance cannot protect from a jail sentence. Workers,
particularly supervisors, should understand what environmental and
other hazards are possible at work and take steps to minimize those
hazards for the best interests of everyone.
J.
Daniel Marr is a director and shareholder
at Hamblett & Kerrigan, PA whose legal practice includes counseling
businesses and business persons on a variety of legal issues and
advocating on their behalf. Attorney Marr is also an adjunct professor
at Daniel Webster College where he teaches business law. You can
reach Attorney Marr by e-mail at: dmarr@hamker.com
This information is general
information and may not reflect the most current legal developments,
verdicts or settlements. The information provided should not
be relied upon as an indication of the actual state of the
law or of future developments. The information contained on
the Hamblett & Kerrigan website is for informational purposes
only and does not constitute legal advice. If the information
referenced may be of legal importance to you, you should consult
with an attorney to provide you with legal guidance and opinion
as the the effect of the current law upon your situation. |
