Opinion ID: 853313
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Roseman's Individual Participation and Statutory Liability

Text: Corporate status was not Roseman's only involvement in the IEMA violations. According to Jim Ritchie, who operated a bulldozer and backhoe at the landfill from April 1990 until April 1991, Roseman was at the landfill site approximately five days per month, and Roseman ordered the landfill's manager and Ritchie to landfill garbage outside of the permitted landfill contours. This was evidence of Roseman's direct participation in the environmental violation. Equally important, the environmental laws require that there be a Responsible Party incident to the permitting of a landfill. [3] When RLG filled out IDEM's Waste Facility Character Disclosure Statement in 1991, Roseman listed RLG in Section D as the Responsible Party, but signed his own name as the Applicant/Responsible Party. Section D2 of that form also requires the applicant or responsible party to list his, her, or its experience in managing the type of waste for which the permit was sought. Significantly, Roseman listed his individual three years of experience as director of Spring Valley Landfill as supplying the Responsible Party's experience in waste management at the contemplated site. Finally, once the violations became the subject of court order, Roseman, who had sole, ultimate control over RLG, did not act to correct them. The trial court's findings did not address Ritchie's affidavit describing Roseman's direct involvement in placing the garbage outside the permitted area, or the fact that Roseman represented himself, not RLG, to be the Responsible Party with three years experience as director of the landfill. All of these are documented and essentially indisputable. The Court of Appeals observed that [t]he evidence discloses [only] that Roseman conducted himself as a corporate officer. RLG, 735 N.E.2d at 299. But that circumstance addresses only the piercing of the corporate veil and does not in itself eliminate liability under Indiana statute or the responsible corporate officer doctrine. Finally, Ritchie's uncontradicted affidavit established that Roseman directly supervised at least some of the landfill's daily unlawful waste disposal activities. This undisputed evidence of Roseman's active involvement in the violations is also sufficient to impose personal liability.