Exxon

[Freak Out]

After many years the end of the road is close at hand for many Alaskans (my name is on that long list) who have fought Exxon over damages from the 89 oil spill and it will be in the hands of the supreme court tomorrow. Considering how similar cases have gone in the past I don't think the court is going to make some kind of dramatic decision over punitive damages but one can hope. :)

[oregonpackfan]

Our local paper had a big article how some of the fishing spots still have not recovered from that spill.

[Deputy Nutz]

You're fucked.

[hoosier]

After many years the end of the road is close at hand for many Alaskans (my name is on that long list) who have fought Exxon over damages from the 89 oil spill and it will be in the hands of the supreme court tomorrow. Considering how similar cases have gone in the past I don't think the court is going to make some kind of dramatic decision over punitive damages but one can hope. :)

Didn't the SC agree to hear Exxon's appeal of a punitive damages award? They've already set a precedent by ruling that punitive can't be more than 9x the amount of non-punitive, and this award--according to NPR's piece this morning--is only 5x, so if they reduce the award they'll actually be going against precedent.

[Freak Out]

After many years the end of the road is close at hand for many Alaskans (my name is on that long list) who have fought Exxon over damages from the 89 oil spill and it will be in the hands of the supreme court tomorrow. Considering how similar cases have gone in the past I don't think the court is going to make some kind of dramatic decision over punitive damages but one can hope. :)

Didn't the SC agree to hear Exxon's appeal of a punitive damages award? They've already set a precedent by ruling that punitive can't be more than 9x the amount of non-punitive, and this award--according to NPR's piece this morning--is only 5x, so if they reduce the award they'll actually be going against precedent.

Exxon is also arguing that they should pay nothing more, that they have already been punished enough.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Exxon is also arguing that they should pay nothing more, that they have already been punished enough.

Interesting. That is the same position Scott Campbell has on taxes.

[Jimx29]

I don't understand how a company like them can exist on 39 million dollars per DAY in profits :roll:

[Freak Out]

I don't understand how a company like them can exist on 39 million dollars per DAY in profits :roll:

It is rather shocking that they could be forced to make due with less.

[Freak Out]

Court Could Limit Exxon Valdez Damages

By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Wednesday, February 27, 2008; 12:25 PM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed inclined to reduce the $2.5 billion award of punitive damages to victims of the Exxon Valdez disaster.

Several justices indicated they think the amount approved by a federal appeals court is too high, although there was no apparent consensus about how much Exxon Mobil Corp. should have to pay for the 1989 accident in which its 987-foot tanker ran aground on a reef and dumped 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska waters.

Justices Anthony Kennedy and David Souter suggested that perhaps a reasonable number would be twice the amount of money the company has paid to compensate victims for economic losses. Walter Dellinger, representing Exxon, said the company has paid about $500 million in such costs.

Overall, Exxon has paid $3.4 billion in fines, penalties, cleanup costs, claims and other expenses resulting from the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

"Exxon gained nothing by what went wrong in this case and paid dearly for it," Dellinger said, in urging the court to erase the punitive damages judgment that has been upheld by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Stanford University law professor Jeffrey Fisher said the nearly 33,000 commercial fishermen, Native Alaskans, landowners, businesses and local governments he represents have each received about $15,000 so far "for having their lives destroyed."

Fisher said nothing in prior Supreme Court decisions should cause the justices to overturn the $2.5 billion award, about $75,000 for each plaintiff.

But Souter said the court has struggled for the past decade to limit excessive punitive damages awards and wondered why the justices should not come up with a number in this case.

"Would that be illegitimate or unwise?" he asked Fisher.

"I'll stick with unwise, Justice Souter," Fisher said.

It was less clear how the court would resolve the issue of whether the company could be held liable at all for the acts of Exxon Valdez captain Joseph Hazelwood. Hazelwood was not on the ship's bridge when the accident occurred and had been drinking shortly before it left port, both in violation of Coast Guard rules and company policy.

Justice Samuel Alito, who owns Exxon stock, is not taking part in the case. A 4-4 split on that or any issue would leave the appeals court ruling in place.

Two brothers from Cordova, Alaska, were in line in front of the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning, waiting to watch the arguments inside.

Commercial fisherman Steve Copeland, who was 41 at the time of the spill, said he cannot afford to retire because his business has never recovered from the steep decline it suffered due to the disaster.

His brother, Tom, said that Exxon "needs to get told they need to be a better corporate citizen."

A jury initially awarded $287 million to compensate for economic losses and $5 billion in punitive damages. The appeals court cut the punitive damages in half. The compensatory damages have been paid.

Exxon argues that long-standing maritime law and the 1970s-era Clean Water Act should bar any punitive damages, which are intended both to punish behavior and deter a repeat. The company says it should not be held accountable for Hazelwood's reckless conduct.

The plaintiffs say the judgment, representing three weeks of Exxon's 2006 profit, is rational and proportionate. It takes account of Exxon's decision to allow Hazelwood to command the ship, despite knowing he had an ongoing drinking problem, the plaintiffs contend.

The case is Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 07-219.

[oregonpackfan]

I don't understand how a company like them can exist on 39 million dollars per DAY in profits :roll:

It is rather shocking that they could be forced to make due with less.

The total reparations Exxon has paid is approximately 3 weeks of their profits!

[Freak Out]

I don't understand how a company like them can exist on 39 million dollars per DAY in profits :roll:

It is rather shocking that they could be forced to make due with less.

The total reparations Exxon has paid is approximately 3 weeks of their profits!

Most of what they have paid so far was done through insurance. They had to pay for the insurance of course but the the bad press was the biggest concern for them. But bad press means nothing when someone is filling the SUV up.

[Scott Campbell]

Exxon is also arguing that they should pay nothing more, that they have already been punished enough.

Interesting. That is the same position Scott Campbell has on taxes.


I haven't even spilled any oil in my driveway. And at least I pay taxes.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I just want to say that I was friends with Scott Campbell before this debate, and we will be friends after.

[SkinBasket]

I thought this thread would be about strippers.

As far as making a company pay more because they make more, that's flat out dumb unless you're ready to enforce a sliding scale of punishment across our entire justice system based on how much a defendant makes.

That's like saying Scott should go to jail for 80 years for murdering Harlan, but Harlan would get a weekend in the county jail for murdering Scott.

But I guess it's easier to demonize a profitable company instead of focusing on the drunk captain who ran his boatload of black gold into western Canada and cost his employer $3,500,000,000 dollars to date.

[Freak Out]

I thought this thread would be about strippers.

As far as making a company pay more because they make more, that's flat out dumb unless you're ready to enforce a sliding scale of punishment across our entire justice system based on how much a defendant makes.

That's like saying Scott should go to jail for 80 years for murdering Harlan, but Harlan would get a weekend in the county jail for murdering Scott.

But I guess it's easier to demonize a profitable company instead of focusing on the drunk captain who ran his boatload of black gold into western Canada and cost his employer $3,500,000,000 dollars to date.

Do you know what is being argued in this case?

[SkinBasket]

Do you know what is being argued in this case?

Something about a glove right?

[Freak Out]

Do you know what is being argued in this case?

Something about a glove right?

OJ was at the helm!

:lol:

[Freak Out]

Do you know what is being argued in this case?

Something about a glove right?

OJ was at the helm!

:lol:

Correction: Al Cowlings was at the helm of the Exxon Valdez not OJ.

[the_idle_threat]

"[H]aving their lives destroyed" seems more than a little dramatic.

Freakout, you said you're a plaintiff in this case. Has your life been destroyed? Really?

I can see folks getting compensatory damages, like the fishermen, for intance. Perfectly reasonable.

But punitive damages are meant to punish outrageous conduct for the sake of deterrence, and I don't think anyone can argue that Exxon and other big oil companies are plenty convinced that another spill is a horrible idea. Since the deterrence effect is minimal, this is nothing but a money grab.

And watch the same folks who demonize big oil and want to see a big punitive award turn around and criticize companies for "discriminating" against people with drinking problems. It's a disease, you know ...

[Freak Out]

"[H]aving their lives destroyed" seems more than a little dramatic.

Freakout, you said you're a plaintiff in this case. Has your life been destroyed? Really?

I can see folks getting compensatory damages, like the fishermen, for intance. Perfectly reasonable.

But punitive damages are meant to punish outrageous conduct for the sake of deterrence, and I don't think anyone can argue that Exxon and other big oil companies are plenty convinced that another spill is a horrible idea. Since the deterrence effect is minimal, this is nothing but a money grab.

And watch the same folks who demonize big oil and want to see a big punitive award turn around and criticize companies for "discriminating" against people with drinking problems. It's a disease, you know ...

Of course my life wasn't destroyed...I'm here at Packerrats!
So you don't consider letting two drunks helm a tanker outrageous conduct? Exxon claims they cant be held liable for the conduct of the crew because of an ancient maritime law that dealt with the fact that a vessel might be out of contact from the owners for months or years at a time...ludicrous in 89. I turned down a check from Exxon that summer because it was a joke....with the price of sockeye where it was I could have made $100,000 or more if I could have fished those two summers but because of the potential for contaminated salmon making it to market most of the fisheries anywhere close to the spill drift were closed. Sure..there is a deterrence regarding future spills but it's more of a reputation deterrence than a monetary one.
As far as discriminating against someone with a disease then they need to take them out of a safety sensitive situation like the one he was in and get him behind a desk. They had a chance to do that and never did.

[The Leaper]

That is the point Freak...

What you are suggesting are COMPENSATORY DAMAGES...not PUNATIVE DAMAGES.

I fully agree that Exxon should be held accountable for compensatory damages to anyone who's livelihood was distrupted by their mistake.

However, punative damages have nothing to do with that. That is the point of the case at hand.

You may thing compensatory damages were not large enough...and you probably are correct. However, that is not the point of the case at hand.

[Freak Out]

That is the point Freak...

What you are suggesting are COMPENSATORY DAMAGES...not PUNATIVE DAMAGES.

I fully agree that Exxon should be held accountable for compensatory damages to anyone who's livelihood was distrupted by their mistake.

However, punative damages have nothing to do with that. That is the point of the case at hand.

You may thing compensatory damages were not large enough...and you probably are correct. However, that is not the point of the case at hand.

But punitive damages are often awarded when compensatory damages have been deemed inadequate...AS A NUMBER OF JURIES HAVE DONE SO FAR IN THIS CASE Leaper.

[SkinBasket]

But punitive damages are often awarded when compensatory damages have been deemed inadequate...AS A NUMBER OF JURIES HAVE DONE SO FAR IN THIS CASE Leaper.

A LOT of juries have their damages reduced on appeal because for the most part juries don't actually have a clue what they're doing and they tend to think the same way you do: That Exxon is a huge company with lots of cash, so hitting them up for a couple billion won't even effect them.

Exxon has already paid out 3.5 BILLION dollars for the actions of one or two negligent employees. At some point you have to stop looking at corporations as cash cows there for the slaughter in our judicial system.

[Scott Campbell]

At some point you have to stop looking at corporations as cash cows there for the slaughter in our judicial system.



Amen brother Skin. And at some point I'd like Harlan to quit looking at Uncle Sam as his own personal Sugar Daddy.

[Freak Out]

But punitive damages are often awarded when compensatory damages have been deemed inadequate...AS A NUMBER OF JURIES HAVE DONE SO FAR IN THIS CASE Leaper.

A LOT of juries have their damages reduced on appeal because for the most part juries don't actually have a clue what they're doing and they tend to think the same way you do: That Exxon is a huge company with lots of cash, so hitting them up for a couple billion won't even effect them.

Exxon has already paid out 3.5 BILLION dollars for the actions of one or two negligent employees. At some point you have to stop looking at corporations as cash cows there for the slaughter in our judicial system.

So the judicial system should be for the exclusive use of who then?
Surely not those dang juries and there wacky modern math...or lack thereof.

I want revenge! More than anything I wanted the DOJ to go as high as they could up the ladder and bring someone down. But old Joe made that call to the coast guard and that was all she wrote. laws have of course changed since then and thats exactly what would happen today if you had that kind of corporate negligence...but you would be hard pressed to find a company that allowed a drunk to drive its vehicles around any longer. The sad thing about all of this is it really never had to happen. The pipeline should NEVER have been built to Valdez in the first place and should have gone through Canada instead. The oil would never have to be loaded in a tanker and shipped over any water at all. But as in most of these things greed won out over everything else. Every American wanted that oil and fast as they could get it. The State of Alaska and the Feds didn't want to share the royalties with the Canadians and the US construction companies wanted all that work for themselves not some Canadian company hooking into the northwest network.