Opinion ID: 853313
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine

Text: The responsible corporate officer doctrine stems from a 1943 United States Supreme Court case in which the Court interpreted the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301-92 (1938), to permit criminal liability to be imposed on any person within a corporation responsible for introducing an adulterated or misbranded drug into interstate commerce. United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277, 64 S.Ct. 134, 88 L.Ed. 48 (1943). [An] offense is committed ... by all who do have such a responsible share in the furtherance of the transaction which the statute outlaws.... Id. at 284, 64 S.Ct. 134. The Court reasoned, [T]he only way in which a corporation can act is through the individuals who act on its behalf. Id. at 281, 64 S.Ct. 134. This liability was justified on the basis that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act touch[es] phases of the lives and health of people which, in the circumstances of modern industrialism, are largely beyond self-protection. Id. at 280, 64 S.Ct. 134. In United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 673-74, 95 S.Ct. 1903, 44 L.Ed.2d 489 (1975), the Supreme Court, drawing on Dotterweich, concluded that the government establishes a prima facie violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as a responsible corporate officer when: it introduces evidence sufficient to warrant a finding by the trier of the facts that the defendant had, by reason of his position in the corporation, responsibility and authority either to prevent in the first instance, or promptly to correct, the violation complained of, and that he failed to do so. The responsible corporate officer doctrine has been applied to public welfare offenses if a statute is intended to improve the common good and the legislature eliminates the normal requirement for culpable intent, resulting in strict liability for all those who have a responsible share in the offense. Matter of Dougherty, 482 N.W.2d 485, 489 (Minn.Ct.App.1992). Although it originated as a criminal law doctrine, the responsible corporate officer doctrine has been applied to civil liability under a number of federal statutes. See United States v. Northeastern Pharm. & Chem. Co., 810 F.2d 726, 743-44 (8th Cir. 1986) (addressing personal liability under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)); United States v. Hodges X-Ray, Inc., 759 F.2d 557, 560-61 (6th Cir.1985) (assessing a violation of the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act (RCHSA): The fact that a corporate officer could be subjected to criminal punishment upon a showing of a responsible relationship to the acts of a corporation that violate health and safety statutes renders civil liability appropriate as well.); United States v. Conservation Chem. Co., 660 F.Supp. 1236, 1245-46 (N.D.Ind.1987) (president and principal stockholder of corporation operating hazardous waste facility in Gary, Indiana may be personally liable for violation of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)). Similarly, several states have adopted the responsible corporate officer doctrine as appropriate under state legislation addressing public safety, in particular, disposal of hazardous waste. Matter of Dougherty, 482 N.W.2d at 488-90 (Minnesota's hazardous waste laws are public welfare statutes and subject to the responsible corporate officer doctrine); State ex rel. Webster v. Mo. Resource Recovery, Inc., 825 S.W.2d 916, 924-26 (Mo.Ct.App.1992) (applying doctrine to Missouri's Hazardous Waste Management Law); State, Dep't of Ecology v. Lundgren, 94 Wash.App. 236, 971 P.2d 948, 951-53 (1999) (sole shareholder of corporation that operated sewage treatment plant is personally liable for violation of Washington's Water Pollution Control Act); State v. Rollfink, 162 Wis.2d 121, 475 N.W.2d 575, 576 (1991) (corporate officer may be held personally liable for violations of Wisconsin's solid and hazardous waste laws if the officer is responsible for the overall operation of the corporation's facility which violated the law).