Dumpster Defenders Verdict

Filed: The defendants argue that they acted within their lawful business operation. That is not an element in this State. If they did so lawfully, why should they have been held liable?

The reason for the exculpatory effect of our mandatory reporting laws was explained by Justice Thomas: “Further, criminal liability requires such a finding because the existence of crime is irrelevant to whether a person or entity violated a law regulating activity….” Id. (quoting Lewis, 459 U.S. at 432 n.11).

While there is no real reason why willful violation of a civil law would exonerate the violator from his state law responsibility for a subsequent criminal conviction, there are some compelling reasons why a determination that the violator acted with bad faith would not result in a similar consequence.

Section 209 of the Restatement (SECOND) tells us that false representations must be “reasonably calculated to deceive.” Further, it is impossible to meet the “reasonably calculated” requirement using the word “negligent” which does not describe negligence. Thus, a violation becomes negligent action when no harm is foreseeable. While a simple pocket knife wouldn’t necessarily be an effective weapon, it is entirely appropriate to increase the likelihood that Congress will know your situation, and it makes sense to include the potential for violence in deciding what is reasonable.

Likewise, where the defendant was required to submit to the government’s inspections, and had little choice about acquiescing without protest, it still might be wrong to press ahead without reconsidering. Nevertheless, it is reasonably clear that a disregard for the law would tend to injure or defraud the government. Given the penalties involved, it is just as much as sensible to uphold the penalties associated with a violation of these terms as it is to rely on a finding that a violation led directly to the same consequences.

All of this is available under our system of criminal law, and it is high time that it was put into our civil law context. There is no inconsistency between these two domains.