1. As a superior Hanousek is expected to do a certain job for his employer. One of the known things a supervisor is in charge of is making sure his/ her employees are doing their job correctly, and in a safe manner. Although Hansouk did not any anyway directly cause the accident he failed to use reasonable care , which in my opinion means that he had the required mental state be convicted of the crime, he did fail to use the care he should have used which led to the accident occurring.
2. The theory that would enable the court to enable the court to hold Hanousek criminally liable for violating the statue regardless of whether he participated in, directed or even knew about the specific violation would be the “Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine”. This doctrine would hold Hanousek criminally liable because his conduct was negligent. Based on his negligent conduct the spill took place. Hanousek’s job as a road master was to ensure that the pipeline was protected based on him failing to ensure this and based on him being an authorative figure over the operator holds him criminally liable.
3. The backhoe operator can not be charged with a crime in this case even though his mistake is what lead to the accident occurring. Because the Hanousek was the supervisor and “could have prevented” the accident from occurring the law lays the responsibility solely on him. The backhoe operator would basically be unable to be convicted because most corporations have clauses in place to shield employees and leaving all the responsibility on their superiors.
4. Although Hansouk was in charge of overseeing the facilities of the railroad project his defense would not stand a chance in court because he knows that he is dealing with a dangerous device that would potentially be a danger to the public. He would at a minimum be guilty of “strict liability” which would enable him to be convicted of a violation even if he had no knowledge of the illegality of the action...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document