Park was convicted under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA). The case is an instance of strict liability, but it is criminal in nature, and the statute itself is silent about mental state. The strict liability construction arose in an earlier Supreme Court case, United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 (1943), which inaugurated what has come to be known as the Responsible Corporate Officer (RCO) doctrine, upon which _Park_ relies.

The RCO doctrine has been codified in the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(6) (1987) (expressly providing that “responsible corporate officers” are among the “persons” who can be pursued civilly or criminally for any violations). I don't know whether other statutes explicitly allow for civil RCO liability. For an interesting recent instance of its use in a federal civil case, see here: Mark Chenoweth, CPSC's Attack On Corporate CEO More Dangerous Than Rare Earth Magnets?, FORBES, Aug. 28, 2013, available at http://www.forbes.com /sites/wlf/2013/08/28/cpscs-attack-on-corporate-ceo-more-dangerous-than-rare-earth-magnets/ (describing a civil suit against the inventor of Buckeyballs, for the company's violations of the CSPC). 

Hope that this helps!
Amy

Amy J. Sepinwall, J.D., Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Legal Studies and Business Ethics
Rm 642, Huntsman Hall
The Wharton School
University of Pennsylvania
3730 Walnut St, 19104
http://works.bepress.com/amysepinwall/

________________________________________
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of James Highsmith [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 6:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: statutory strict liability question

The Park case was an example of holding a CEO responsible in strict liability for rodent infested warehouse. I think it was under FDA statutes but my memory is hazy there. A price fixing conviction under Sherman section 1 can lead to strict liability for civil damages against the convicted defendants. Under the treble damage tort suits authorized by statute the plaintiffs only need to prove damages. There is no need for a liabilty trial as the conviction serves as proof of liabilty. To me this is strict liability. Civil antitrust suits are often bifurcated into a liability portion followed by a damage portion if liability is found. That is why ctiminal defedants here usually plea bargain.

Please forgive typos .

Best, Jim Highsmith
----- OriginalI took it to the store I bought it Message -----
From: Lynda Oswald <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 18:27:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: statutory strict liability question

I'm seeking some assistance from the collective wisdom of the Academy on a
research issue.

I am looking for examples of federal civil statutes that impose strict
liability. I can think of two examples on my own:  (1) direct patent
infringement under the Patent Act of 1952 is a strict liability; (2)
 CERCLA imposes strict liability upon owners and operators for cleanup of
hazardous waste. (In both of those examples, the strict liability standard
is not explicit in the statutory language but that's okay -- close enough
for my purposes).

Is anyone aware of other examples of strict liability in federal civil
statutes? I've seen literature on strict liability in the criminal statute
context, but can't find much written in the civil statutory context.

Thanks!

Lynda


--
Lynda J. Oswald
Area Chair and Professor of Business Law
University of Michigan
Stephen M. Ross School of Business
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1234
[log in to unmask]