Case 3 - Dangerous substances

Summary

A is a producer of dangerous substances. After several years of site operation, neighbouring land has become contaminated. Being a neighbour of the site, B suffers a loss.

1. Is A liable to B? Is it of any importance that B owns the contaminated land?

2. Would it make any difference if B had suffered personal injury or property damage?

3. What would the extent of liability be if the pollutants cause minor health damage (e.g. chronic bronchitis) and/or property damage to the majority of people living in the community affected by the contamination?

Comparative remarks

Comparison

No European country, except for the Netherlands, provides for a specific liability regime with regard to dangerous substances. Operators of activities producing or dealing with dangerous substances, therefore, are subject to the liability regimes outlined in Case 1. In the Netherlands, Article 6:175 Burgerlijk Wetboek imposes a special strict liability regime on the use of dangerous substances. Liability is placed upon the operator of the activity, who can be held liable many years later, even after closure of the plant. With regard to waste diposal sites, Article 6:176(3) Burgerlijk Wetboek makes clear that, if a waste disposal site was transferred to another operator, the successor cannot be burdened with damages caused by his or her predecessor.

Most countries also ensure the clean-up of contaminated land pursuant to administrative law (Austria, Belgium, England, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Scotland, Spain and Sweden).