4. Reasoning of the Court: Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. United States

Although the court found the parties liable, it did not impose joint and several liability on Shell and the Railroads for the entire response cost incurred by the Governments. The court found that the site contamination created a single harm but concluded that the harm was divisible and therefore capable of apportionment. Based on three figures—the percentage of the total area of the facility that was owned by the Railroads, the duration of B&B’s business divided by the term of the Railroads’ lease, and the Court’s determination that only two of three polluting chemicals spilled on the leased parcel required remediation and that those two chemicals were responsible for roughly two-thirds of the overall site contamination requiring remediation—the court apportioned the Railroads’ liability as 9% of the Governments’ total response cost.4 http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1601.pdf. At the District Federal Court level, Shell Oil Corp. was found to be responsable for all of the toxic chemiacls that were spilled at the site, however, The Court of Appeals saw that Shell could not be the sole bearer of responsability simply because they only sold B&B the chemicals. The Court of Appeals did place some of the responsability on Shell because after all, they were the company that made the chemicals in the first place.