United States v. Hanousek
176 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 1998)
Legal Analysis
Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.
Nature Of The Case
This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.
Facts
D was employed as roadmaster of a Railroad. D was responsible under his contract 'for every detail of the safe and efficient maintenance and construction of track, structures and marine facilities of the entire railroad . . . and was to assume similar duties with special projects.' D supervised was a rock-quarrying project at a site alongside the railroad. It involved blasting rock outcroppings alongside the railroad, working the fractured rock toward railroad cars, and loading the rock onto railroad cars with a backhoe. A pipeline runs parallel to the railroad at or above ground level, within a few feet of the tracks. To protect the pipeline during the project, a work platform of sand and gravel was constructed. After D took over responsibility for the project in May 1994, no further sections of the pipeline were protected. Shane Thoe, a backhoe operator, was using the backhoe bucket to sweep the rocks from the tracks, Thoe struck the pipeline causing a rupture. An estimated 1,000 to 5,000 gallons of oil were discharged into the adjacent Skagway River, a navigable water of the United States. D was charged with one count of negligently discharging a harmful quantity of oil into a navigable water of the United States, in violation of the Clean Water Act. D was convicted of negligently discharging a harmful quantity of oil into a navigable water of the United States but acquitted him on the charge of conspiring to provide false information. The district court imposed a sentence of six months of imprisonment, six months in a halfway house and six months of supervised release, as well as a fine of $ 5,000. D appealed. D contends he cannot be convicted criminally for mere negligence. Over D's objection, the district court instructed the jury that the government was required to prove only that D acted negligently, which the district court defined as 'the failure to use reasonable care.'
Issues
The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.
Holding & Decision
The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.
© 2007-2025 ABN Study Partner