Simmons manages a company that hauls toxic chemicals. He has made sure that everything is in compliance with all safety and environmental laws, but one tanker truck is in an accident and spills chemicals into a creek, requiring costly cleaning. Simmons: a. is not liable, because the driver should have taken extra care in such a situation. b. is liable only if he acted negligently. c. is not liable, because he acted with due diligence to see that no one was hurt. d. is strictly liable for all harms.

Simmons is strictly liable for all harms (option d).

Explanation:

The Federal Government enacted significant laws to protect the environment from the pollution caused by corporate sectors. EPA (Environment Protection Agency) laws cleanly monitor the threat of water pollution. The Clean Water Act (CWA) is administered under the guidance of higher-level officials working in EPA. In this scenario, Simmons should bear entire responsibility from the cause of the unexpected accident done through tanker trucks.

Though Simmon has followed utmost diligence to follow the routine work of toxic chemicals. But he solely takes charge to clear the creek which may spoil its utility in a future period. Though, he is not directly involved in it. The compliance procedure should be strictly followed by Simmon. At any cost Simmon also liable to the pollution-related crime done by employees of his own company.