Hazardous Waste Trucking Company carried on business as a transporter of industrial-waste products to licensed waste-disposal sites. Liquid Waste Disposal Company carried on a similar type of business, but handled only liquid waste. On a clear winter day, a transport truck owned and operated by Hazardous Waste Trucking Company collided on an icy patch of highway with a truck operated by Liquid Waste Disposal Company. The drivers of both vehicles had been operating their respective vehicles in accordance with the provincial Highway Traffic Act, and the patch of ice on the highway was totally unexpected. Both drivers had lost control of their vehicles on the ice, and their trailers that carried the waste products collided, causing their contents to spill on the highway. The contents of each trailer did not constitute a toxic waste in itself, but the mixing of the two products produced a toxic compound hazardous to fish and animals. A local fire department answered the accident call and flushed the substance from the highway, instead of simply containing the waste mixture. As a result, a small stream was contaminated by the runoff. Environmental inspectors ordered a cleanup, but both companies refused to do so, blaming each other and the fire department. The government arranged for the cleanup at a cost of $135,000. Discuss the issues raised in this case on the basis that the “owners” of a contaminant under the environmental-protection legislation are responsible for any environmental damage that it may cause and the cost of any cleanup required.