Alvin owns a nuclear plant and wants to use brand new technology that involves toxic and hazardous materials.  Because the technology is brand new, Alvin (a) is unsure how the materials will interact with the environment, and (b) is unsure whether any harmful environmental consequences can be undone. What environmental law principle should Alvin use in deciding whether to use the brand new technology or not?

Albert owns a manufacturing plant. He has a legal duty to not let his chemicals escape his plant and travel onto his neighbors’ land. The chemicals from his manufacturing plant, however, do escape and wind up in his neighbors’ water line. His neighbors do not notice anything peculiar about the water and receive no injuries from the chemical spill. Years later, the neighbors still have no injuries, and none are anticipated at all to surface. Has a tort been committed?

Relating back to the question above, what type of costs may those individuals you selected in your answer to the above question be required to pay?

Under a products liability cause of action, a plaintiff must prove:

A zoning law based solely on aesthetics is valid under the police power given to the government by the United States Constitution.

Under the principal of judicial review, courts may declare any environmental statute unconstitutional if that statute violates the U.S. Constitution.

Relating back to the question above, what type of costs may those individuals you selected in your answer to the above question be required to pay?

If the government places such heavy regulations on a property owner’s land, that he can no longer benefit from his land, this will not be considered a taking or a form of eminent domain. The government must, instead, physically seize the property owner’s land in order for it to be considered an eminent domain or taking proceeding.

Environmental law is a field created from the bottom up (rather than top down) using grassroots efforts.

Which case involved the following information?   Facts: Plaintiffs were property owners who lived approximately 3 miles from a chemical waste burial site owned by the defendant. The waste seeped into the plaintiffs’ drinking water and caused them to become sick from bathing, cooking, and cleaning in the contaminated water.   Ruling in Case: The court ruled that plaintiffs could successfully bring a lawsuit arguing several different tort theories all at the same time, which included (a) strict liability, (b) negligence, (c) trespass, and (d) nuisance.