Individual criminal liability

Many adhesives- and sealants-related activities present significant process safety risks. These activities include chemical processing, material manufacturing welding and hazardous materials transportation. When accidents occur in connection with these or other activities, individuals and employers are exposed to potential civil and criminal liabilities. 

In deciding whether to impose liability in respect of earlier choices made by the defendant, the courts will take into account a number of factors. The greater the risk of injury to others and the smaller the burden on the defendant to make less risky choices—the more a court will be inclined to impose criminal liability. In the case of intoxicated individuals, the risk analysis is clear. The risk of... 

Liability exposure to individual officers or employees has expanded the scope of criminal liability and responsibility for not only the actions of individuals but also their respective corporate employers. In the first conviction for the newly created Multi-Agency Environmental Task Force in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the owner of an environmental laboratory pled guilty to mailing falsified environmental test results and bills for tests his company never performed. Jerry Martin, owner of Martin Environmental... 

Criminal liability for improper disposal of hazardous waste. Responsibilities of waste generators, companies, and individuals. 

It is recommended that unauthorized manufacture should not btj criminal offense unless it is done with purpose to sell or otherwl dispose of a controlled drug. Illicit manufacturers usually manufactu depressant or stimulant drugs" to distribute them. However, so controlled drugs may be made on a small scale for personal use. Thus is possible that some individuals may be making LSD solely for th own use. Many of the same reasons which support the exemption persons who without authorization possess controlled drugs solely fi their own use from criminal liabifity also support their exempt from criminal liability for unauthorized manufacture. Even more th possession, unauthorized manufacture is an offense preparatory... 

The EPA does not have the authority to absolve individuals of criminal liability, but this is a valuable statement of the EPA s intent to exercise discretion in civil enforcements and in referrals to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. 

Four particular approaches to the criminalisation of corporations that kill will be identified among the developments that have occurred across different national jurisdictions. The first of these is the introduction of a direct corporate liability homicide offence, of which the UK s corporate manslaughter offence, discussed in the previous chapter, is the most high-profile example. The second is the imposition of corporate criminal liability in general terms, via a mechanism of attribution (such as the identification doctrine) which allows a corporation to be liable for a homicide offence aimed at individual defendants this often creates the possibility of corporate homicide liability but does not lead to the imposition of liability in practice. The third is to have these mechanisms... 

European jurisdictions have traditionally been resistant to the notion of corporate criminal liability. Civil law penal codes have tended to draw rigid distinctions between criminal and administrative law and to conceive of the former as only applicable to natural persons, in line with Kantian ideals of individualism (Weigend 2008 929) as legal fictions, corporations cannot be said to possess any moral capacity in their own right, separate from that of those individuals who constitute it (Orland and Cachera 1995 112 Weigend 2008 937). For continental jurists. 

Such liability is incurred without prejudice to the criminal liability of individuals having committed the offences. 

Ok, no big deal. All that does is just make things more expensive to ship. It doesn t change liability or how serious a trouble a chem company can be in if they sell to an individual. Or does it The DOT s responsibility was to make shipping safer. That s it. That was their mandate. BUT (and this is only what I heard from a few lab companies) apparently the DEA got into bed with the DOT and got them to use this opportunity to hammer the lab companies. I have heard that the DOT may have overstepped its authority and had the liabilities and/or civil and criminal penalties raised on sales to individuals. Again this is J ust a rumor, but it seems a reasonable tactic for the DEA to get done what they could not do alone. 

---