Common Law Liability. 7.6 Buyers and sellers of contaminated property may be liable under common law principles for personal injuries and property damage caused by contamination. For example, common law claims by third parties relating to a failure to undertake due care obligations are not preempted by Part 201 (see MCL 324.20142) or CERCLA (see 42 USC 9652(d)) .. As with liability under Part 201, a seller’s potential liability under common law does not cease after completion of a sale, and a buyer of contaminated property is not immune from common law liability even when the buyer complies with the Section 20107a due care obligations. Id. Common law environmental liability is discussed generally in Chapter 13. Negligence and nuisance are typical common law claims that are available for parties injured by soil or groundwater contamination originating on another’s property. While liability under Part 201 is strict, liability under common law principles is either fault-based (i.e., negligence) or measured by the utility of the conduct causing the contamination (i.e., nuisance). An action for trespass is not available where property damage is caused by migrating soil or groundwater contamination since soil and groundwater contamination does not constitute a direct, physical invasion of property. Xxxxx v Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co, 237 Mich App 51, 66-67; 602 NW2d 215 (1999). A buyer and seller of contaminated property can be subject to nuisance liability if the presence of the contamination presents a substantial harm caused by an unreasonable interference with another’s use and enjoyment of their property. Id. Whether interference is “unreasonable” is determined according to the public policy assessment of its overall value. Id. The viability of a common law claim is not necessarily dependent on the level of contaminants in the soil or groundwater. For example, it is possible for low levels of contaminants to migrate onto an adjoining parcel without the adjoining parcel becoming a “facility” under Part 201. The levels of contaminants, however, may be sufficient to allow the landowner to assert a common law claim for property damage. Depending on the degree of the perceived risks of common law liability involved, the parties to a purchase agreement may desire to shift the risks of incurring common law liability through the use of indemnification and hold harmless agreements. See §7.13. Part 201 expressly allows these types of agreements between private parties, but they do not allo...
Common Law Liability. Compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law. (Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 943.) HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES Revised Sec- tion Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large) 30103(a) ...... 15:1392(g). Sept. 9, 1966, Pub. L. 89–563, §§ 103(g), 105(a)(6), 116, 80 Stat. 720, 721, 727. 30103(b) ...... 15:1392(d). Sept. 9, 1966, Pub. L. 89–563, § 103(d), 80 Stat. 719; Oct. 15, 1982, Pub. L. 97–331, § 3, 96 Stat. 1619. 30103(c) ...... 15:1405. 30103(d) ...... 15:1394(a)(6). 15:1410a(e). Sept. 9, 1966, Pub. L. 89–563, 80 Stat. 718, §§ 124(e), 160; added Oct. 27, 1974, Pub. L. 93–492, §§ 102(a), 106, 88 Stat. 1477, 1481. 15:1420. 30103(e) ...... 15:1397(k). Sept. 9, 1966, Pub. L. 89–563, § 108(k), 80 Stat. 723; Oct. 31, 1988, Pub. L. 100–562, § 2(b), 102 Stat. 2818. In subsection (a), the words ‘‘or the Transportation of Explosives Act, as amended (18 U.S.C. 831–835)’’ are omitted as obsolete because 18:831–835 have been re- pealed. The word ‘‘prescribe’’ is substituted for ‘‘adopt’’ for consistency. The words ‘‘or continue in effect’’ and ‘‘In prescribing safety regulations’’ are omitted as sur- plus. The word ‘‘prescribed’’ is substituted for ‘‘issued’’ for consistency. The words ‘‘to comply’’ and ‘‘Federal’’ are omitted as surplus. The words ‘‘in effect’’ are added for clarity. In subsection (b)(1), the word ‘‘Federal’’ is omitted as surplus. The word ‘‘prescribe’’ is substituted for ‘‘either to establish, or to continue in effect’’ for consistency and to eliminate unnecessary words. The words ‘‘stand- ard prescribed under this chapter’’ are substituted for ‘‘Federal standard’’ for clarity. The words ‘‘However, the United States . . . may prescribe’’ are substituted for ‘‘Nothing in this section shall be construed to pre- vent the Federal . . . from establishing’’ for consist- ency. The words ‘‘of a State’’ are substituted for ‘‘thereof’’ for clarity. The word ‘‘standard’’ is sub- stituted for ‘‘safety requirement’’ for consistency. The words ‘‘performance requirement’’ are substituted for ‘‘standard of performance’’ to avoid using ‘‘standard’’ in 2 different ways. Subsection (b)(2) is substituted for 15:1392(d) (2d sen- tence) for consistency and to eliminate unnecessary words. In subsection (c), the words ‘‘be deemed to’’ and ‘‘of the United States’’ are omitted as surplus. In subsection (d), the words ‘‘United States’’ are sub- stituted for ‘‘Federal...
