FREE ESSAY ON CASE STUDY: AMOCO OIL CO. V. BORDEN, INC

CASE STUDY: AMOCO OIL CO. V. BORDEN, INC

Amoco Oil Co. v. Borden, Inc.
889 F.2d 664 (5th Cir. 1989) 
Plantiff and Defendants:
The Plantiff is Amoco Oil Company. The defendant is Borden, Inc. 
Facts:
Amoco bought 114 acres of land from Borden, Inc. in Texas City, Texas. Borden was the
owner of a phosphate fertilizer plant in that same location. After the land was purchased
by Amoco, they found out that 35 acres of land was covered by a pile of mildly
radioactive phosphogypsum, a by product of fertilizer manufacture. Amoco, unaware of the
problem then hired guards and put up fences around the radioactive material. Amoco then
sued Borden, under the superfund (CERCLA) for its responsive costs.
Lower Courts:
The district courts looked at Bordens' proposal that the amount of radiation emitted by
the pile was less than some natural sources. The district court then ruled that Borden
was not liable for the containment costs. 
Issues Appealed:
Should Amoco have to pay the costs of containment or should Borden?
Who Wins:
Amoco Oil Co. wins in Supreme Court.
Reasoning: 
1) The supreme court pointed out that the plantiff's who has incurred responce costs
meets the liability requirements as a matter of law.
2) The Supreme Court also pointed out the fact that Amoco's security measures and site
investigation are acceptable responce costs within the meaning of (CERCLA).
3) The Supreme Court concluded that Borden was accountable for the costs that the
radioactive material produced. 
4) Amoco was entitled to a summary judgement on the liability issue. 
5) The District Court's ruling was reversed and remanded.