Exxon

[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!

[Freak Out]

Do you know what is being argued in this case?

Something about a glove right?

OJ was at the helm!

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.