## Facts

- George Mizhir operated an oil-delivery business and owned/operated an oil truck used to deliver No. 2 fuel oil.
- On December 20, 1994, Mizhir brought the truck to a repair shop in Keene, New Hampshire for service; the mechanic documented that the brakes were “unsafe” and wrote “not to drive truck.”
- The next day, Mizhir drove the truck and crashed into a house in Marlborough, New Hampshire, spilling about 3,000 gallons of No. 2 fuel oil into the house and surrounding area.
- Oil reached and threatened nearby waters, including Minnewawa Brook, which flows into the Ashuelot River.
- Mizhir did not undertake cleanup. The homeowner’s insurer hired an environmental contractor for emergency removal from the house.
- State environmental officials notified EPA; an EPA on-scene coordinator observed oil seeping into the brook.
- EPA obtained federal funding through the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and contracted for removal from the brook; cleanup was completed by August 4, 1995.
- The United States sought reimbursement for approximately $242,587 in removal and related costs (including contractor charges, EPA oversight costs, and interest). Mizhir did not pay.
- The United States filed suit on May 22, 1998; both sides moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the owner/operator of an oil truck that discharged oil into or threatening navigable waters is a “responsible party” strictly liable for federal removal costs under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA).
2. Whether the defendant could avoid liability by showing the discharge was “caused solely by” a third party (the repair shop) and that he exercised due care and took precautions required by 33 U.S.C. § 2703(a)(3).
3. Whether the government’s OPA cost-recovery action was barred by the statute of limitations when filed within three years of completion of removal.

## Decision

- The court granted the United States’ motion for summary judgment and denied Mizhir’s cross-motion.
- Mizhir was a “responsible party” under the OPA and strictly liable for removal costs arising from the discharge from his truck.
- The third-party defense failed because Mizhir’s conduct contributed to the spill and he did not show due care or reasonable precautions after receiving an explicit warning not to drive.
- The action was timely because it was filed within three years after completion of removal (cleanup completed August 4, 1995; suit filed May 22, 1998).
- Judgment required reimbursement of removal costs paid from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, with interest.

## Legal Principles

- Under the OPA, the owner or operator of a vessel/vehicle from which oil is discharged into, or poses a threat to, navigable waters or adjoining shorelines is a “responsible party” liable for removal costs.
- OPA liability for removal costs is strict, subject to limited statutory defenses.
- The third-party defense under 33 U.S.C. § 2703(a)(3) requires proof that the discharge was caused solely by a third party and that the responsible party exercised due care and took precautions against foreseeable third-party acts or omissions; contributory fault by the responsible party defeats the defense.
- For OPA cost-recovery actions, the limitations period runs from completion of the removal action, not from the date of the discharge.

## Conclusion

The court held that the owner/operator of the oil truck was strictly liable under the OPA for federal cleanup costs because the spill was not caused solely by the repair shop and the defendant lacked due care after being warned not to drive; the government’s reimbursement suit was timely because it was filed within three years of cleanup completion.


United States v. Mizhir, 106 F. Supp. 2d 124 (D. Mass. 2000)