Court slices Exxon Valdez damage award

Thank you, President Bush. You just gave another jackpot to your buddies, the Oil Corps and that's on top of their 123 BILLION DOLLAR PROFITS for last year, according to their books !! His hacks, oops, I mean, his appointees have payed off !! Watch out America, even if we did put a stop on the Oil Corps gouging us at the pump, this Supreme Court would rule it, not in the best interest of our National Security, or some such nonsense !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Souter, are you kidding me? Souter? Mr. Kelo himself?
Maybe H.W. Bush wasn't completely off his rocker when he appointed you. More common sense decisions like this and less like Kelo, please.

Once again the oil companies profit at the expense of the common citizen.

$500 million dollars is about 1 1/4% of the proffit Exon Mobil made last year. It will have no punative affect on the company at all. They get off scot free for their gross negiligence, which beyond the environmental damage, destroyed the incomes of thousands of Americans.

Welcome to the United Corporations of America.

I see jeff and his fellow fascists are rejoicing in this shameful decision once again. If McSame is elected, there will be no stopping the corporate takeover of America

Thank you, President Bush. You just gave another jackpot to your buddies, the Oil Corps and that's on top of their 123 BILLION DOLLAR PROFITS for last year, according to their books !! His hacks, oops, I mean, his appointees have payed off !! Watch out America, even if we did put a stop on the Oil Corps gouging us at the pump, this Supreme Court would rule it, not in the best interest of our National Security, or some such nonsense !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | June 25, 2008 11:39 AM

Don- so when the SCOTUS rules for something you favor - (like the recent habeus corpus for terrorists nonsense) are they hacks then as well?

Not sure what is more inconsistent, your knowledge of economics, or your common sense..

Once again the judgement of ordinary Americans who made up the original jury is trampelled by ELITISTS who think they have better judgement.

As usual, the Swamp got the holding wrong. The Court did not fix a 1:1 ratio for awarding punitive damages in all maritime cases. It said, in maritime cases like this one, the ratio should be 1:1 because did not involve an intentional tort or a one committed for profit. Thus, the Court's reasoning left open the possibility of higher punitive damage awards in maritime cases involving intentional torts or those committed for profit.
* * * * *
Furthermore, the Court did not make its ruling on the basis of any statutory or constitutional principle. In the area of maritime law, the Court functions much like a common law court of last resort with common law powers to make policy. The court specifically stated that it was acting on its common law powers over maritime law and in the absence of Congressional action in the area. Thus, the reasoning would allow Congress to alter the holding by passing a law to allow for a different measure of damages.
* * * * *
For all these reasons, this case does not represent a major legal groundswell (inasmuch as maritime cases are rare). The court simply said that an award of punitive damages equal to the compensatory damages is the outer limit in maritime cases not involving intentional torts or those committed for financial gain. This is nothing to get bothered about inasmuch as all the plaintiffs were awarded damages to compensate them for their losses – which have already been paid.

ummmm, WHY? the area is still devastated. meanwhile, their profits are soaring. there is something seriously wrong with this.

The robber barons are in charge again

Um ... Souter is a liberal justice; Bush has nothing to do with USSC decisions ... you've either got to be desperate to criticize Bush, or ignorant of the way the government works, or both, in order to put these two together.

Ho hum - another pro-business decision by a pro-business Supreme Court. For mega-corporations like Exxon, what they ended up actually paying is nothing more than a cost of doing business. The need to get Obama into the White House is demonstrated yet again.

It took over $750 million in legal fees to litigate this case, so the people lost big.

As usual, the only significant result of this entire case is that a boatload (no pun intended) of lawyers gets massively wealthier. Shocking.

It amazes me that it took 19 years for a decision to be made in favor of Exxon Valdez, just enough time to get the right judges in place and the "right" administration to pick those judges.

The fishermen may or may not have been compensated, but the impact on the environment and those living creatures who had no representation in the courts should have counted for something. Isn't man supposed to be the steward of all God's creation? I guess those who deal with greed and profit abdicated that responsibility as did those in power who swore to serve our nation honorably.

That is just wrong!

This company has made 10 billion this quarter in Profit, and we reduce the pautry payment to 1/2 billion! Exxon has made 10 billion in the 1st quarter. The original award was 5 billion and should have stood. This is wrong! This is reasonable compared to their profits!
Exon may have spent 3 or 4 billion already, but they have profited. 10 billion in 3 months! provably 100's of billions since this took place in 1989. And how about the interest since this has been dragged through the courts all these years!

This is an outrage!

John W. the point of the 2.5 billion dollar penalty is to make sure that oil companies will not allow this to happen again. The puny little bit they have to pay now will not deter them from being arrogant, sloppy, and cutting corners and making more profit at the expense of the environment and the common man..

* * * * *
"The fishermen may or may not have been compensated, but the impact on the environment and those living creatures who had no representation in the courts should have counted for something."
*****
Posted by: the truth | June 25, 2008 3:50 PM
* * * * *
They did count for something, and they were represented. Separate and apart from the jury verdicts that resulted in the compensatory and punitive damages appealed from, Exxon paid about $2.1 billion to clean up the mess, pleaded guilty to criminal violations for which they were fined $25 million and ordered to pay another $150 million in restitution, settled a civil action by the United States and Alaska for at least $900 million, and paid another $303 million in voluntary settlements with fishermen, property owners, and other private parties. Exxon didn't even try to challenge the compensatory damage award in the Supreme Court. It limited its attack to the additional award of $5 billion dollars in punitive damages.
* * * * *
So what are you talking about?

The people attacking the high court for making this decision really need to go back and educate themselves on exactly what the court decided. At no point in this decades long deliberation has there ever been any question as to whether or not Exxon/Mobil was liable to pay for the damages it caused. That was not even an issue in this case, it was agreed at the outset that it was. The question the court decided was how much would Exxon/Mobil have to pay in damages. As John W correctly pointed out, the High Court simply said that an award of punitive damages equal to the compensatory damages is the outer limit in maritime cases not involving intentional torts (non-accidents) or those committed for financial gain.
This has no bearing on most negligence cases and for a precedent to be applied the circumstances would have to be nearly identical to what happened to the Valdez. This has nothing to with whether or not oil companies will have an incentive to prevent such a disaster from happening again.
If you really think oil companies don't have the most stringent policies already in place to prevent the loss of MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THEIR OWN PRODUCT AS WELL AS THE LOSS OF A $500 PENALTY than I'd like some of what you're having, please.

At oral arguments in the case, Exxon had pleaded for relief, saying that it spent some $2.1 billion in clean up efforts, paid $900 million in fines to the United States and Alaska and another $303 million in payments to private parties. ~ J.O.

For the number challenged, this total is 3 Billion 303 Million. It looks like $3,303,000,000, but as we know, that's just pool hall pocket change. ExxonMobil could never spend enough to appease the Marxists.

Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer filed dissents saying they would have upheld the appeals court award of $2.5 billion. ~ J.O.

What happened to Souter??? Why is he not in with this cabal. Did someone change Souter's medication??? There needs to be an investigation!

This was an accident. Was the corporation careless or was the captain careless? The captain may have been acting as an agent of the corporation, but the captain was negligent beyond the corporation's expectations.

It seems to me there has to be some give and take in all of this. Otherwise no one is going to have a business - knowing that it can all be squashed the next time an employee gets drunk.

It limited its attack to the additional award of $5 billion dollars in punitive damages.
* * * * *
So what are you talking about?

Posted by: John W. | June 25, 2008 4:49 PM
********************************
What I am talking about John is "scientists estimate that thousands of animals died. According to Wikipedia, some 250,000 sea birds, 2,800 sea otters, 300 harbor seals, 250 bald eagles, up to 22 orcas, and billions of salmon and herring eggs perished immediately.

This article is based on a press release from the American Chemical Society."
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0516-exxon.html

Can you put a dollar amount on the demise of God's innocent creatures. I guess one can count you out as a responsible steward as long as money is slapped in your hands.

The captain was not at the helm at the time. He gave specific instructions to the third mate which were not followed.
Had the USCG maintained their aids to navigation in the area this whole event may have been avoided.

* * * * *
Posted by: The Bubba | June 25, 2008 4:41 PM

You would be right were it not for the billions of dollars that Exxon had to pay for the cleanup, as well as in fines and judgments entirely apart from the verdict involved in this case. Only by counting all of that other stuff could the result seem unfair.

* * * * *
Posted by: the truth | June 25, 2008 5:52 PM

If all those birds and other creatures are dead no amount of money is going to bring them back to life. Therefore, compensating the living and repairing the environment to the greatest extent possible is the best that any government or court system can do. It is also the best citizens can expect. Neither your petulant rant over placing a dollar figure on God's creation, nor the charge that I am going to be compliant with those with money, are fair because that kind of reasoning has no logical end. If the money they already had to pay wasn't enough, then how much more will do? If you can't place a dollar figure on God's creation, then the 5 billion punitive damages award (on top of everything else) wasn't good enough either, is it? So what else will it take? Maybe they should have just taken the board of directors for Exxon out and shot them? Would that have made you feel better? Would that compensate for Bambi, Thumper and all their aquatic friends or bring them back to life? Do you see where your logic takes you?

punitive damages in my understanding and experience are supposed to be Punishing or Punitive and that amount changes with the ability of the punished to pay. Charging a homeless man $10 might be more punishing than a millionaire $200,000. That just is. Until the wreckage is cleaned up, which it is not, we have yet to know the longer (it has already been long) term affects of this blunder. Piloting bombs of this size around the world needs to be done with care, double hulled vessels and back up personnel as with commercial aircraft that have a lesser potential affect on the environment. Only with severe damage to a company can avoidance be "encouraged".

So what else will it take? Maybe they should have just taken the board of directors for Exxon out and shot them? Would that have made you feel better? Would that compensate for Bambi, Thumper and all their aquatic friends or bring them back to life? Do you see where your logic takes you?

Posted by: John W. | June 25, 2008 6:26 PM

**********************************
You're correct - no amount of money will compensate for the loss of life, but a stinging amount will signal to these almighty oil companies that they had better get their act together and start thinking beyond the bottom line. Also, your sarcasm only goes to demonstrate your inability to reason beyond the box and to trivialize the lives of creatures who depend on humans for their very existence or non-existence. With people like you, Bambi and Thumper wouldn't have a chance because you would sit back in your easy chair and smugly use "logic" to qualify your measurement of life.

And not one mention of the Rockefeller family in the story but more worrisome, in the reader posts.

The sheep love getting shearred. Wake up you idiots.

Let me see, it was the captain who was drunk and left the helm that caused the accident. So why is Exxon responsible for all this? It is not like the vessel was not seaworthy or the vessel was instructed to take a risky route by Exxon. No, it was the captain's fault pure and simple. Exxon paid for the cleanup and the fines too. So because they have big deep pockets of money, everyone feels that it is all their fault. Better hope one of your children doesn't do something like that. You will be responsible and others will be going after all your assets because you have them.

Well John and Jeff, glad to see you Bush fans are still around. At least we know a couple of the 27% that think Bush is doing a good job, you guys are hard to find. Oh and by the way, are you two in the .01% of the upper tax bracket? Because those are the people that have benefited from your boy. The other 99.98% have been taking it on the chin for 7 years. And be prepared for the Jebster next time.

This decision is a win for consumers.

I was startled to see the lineup on this one--what with the majority opinion written by Souter.

There should be caps on punitive damages, and it's something that Congress, and not the SCOTUS, should address.

Of course, since trial lawyers have such a lock on the Democracts, it's unlikely that we'll see such legislation until the Republicans take over.

Pray that be soon.

When ex-oil co executives Daddy and Sonny Bush are making the Supreme Court appointments, is this a surprise?
The population of the US is now over 300 million. At the start of the Civil War it was about 31 million. Yet around that time there were, as I recall, 13 judges on the Supreme Court as opposed to the current 9.
So perhaps a President Obama and a Democratic Congress could beef up the federal courts. More district court judges for that backlog. More Court of Appeals judges so they won't have to issue so many "summary" dispositions of appeals without written opinions stating their reasons.
And more judges for the Supreme Court. Perhaps 11. Or even 13.

My three brothers were fishermen when the Exon Valdez ruined their livelihood and that of thousands of other Alaskan fishermen. This affected more than just the fish, fowl and ocean ecosystem.
I am an environmentalist and abhor the loss of the wildlife and wild stretches of beach and seashore that were blighted.
But families too were lost because of this. Families had their livelihoods taken away overnite; fisherman lost their fishing sites, boats and licenses which they paid dearly for.Some lost their families when they had to declare bankruptcy....kids were torn from their parents in divorces because many were pushed to their limits when all was lost. These livelihoods did not just pick up the next season or the following one. Two of the three of my brothers left the state as they were unable to make a living. One of my brothers has stayed in the industry and manages a fish packing plant which has to this day never afforded him a retirement.

Many of these fisherman counted on this settlement to even the injustice that they spent the last 19 years of their lives waiting for. Our Supreme Court showed itself at its worst for those members who chose to vote against this settlement and reduce it to a pittance compared to the damages that were suffered. Thousands of those fishermen and their families will never appreciate a retirement now because this penalty payment will not come. Most of these folks have lived close to the edge for many years with the hopes and dreams of this settlement making it possible to go on. Now their waiting has been for naught and the most heinous of verdicts has been meted out in favor of EXON who does not care to really be exonerated for this environmental disaster. They were just waiting for the odds to be stacked in their favor and this Republican administration gave it to them at the expense of some of the most independent fishermen who labored as hard as anyone does in any job. This is NOT fair and equal treatment it is a travesty of justice and EXON should pay the full amount of the original judgement.

Vito @ 8:54 p.m.

Vito, like Django, what a great name.

Speaking of Django, U just have to thrown him in with Jeff and John. We are off-task here, but we can say that there are at least three of those Bush supporters (I guess) lounging around the Swamp.

I USED to teach Algebra, Geometry, and Calculus. NOW, I'm Rich. Working with the top 2.5%. Not Rich due entirely to the Bush Tax Cuts, but I do at least know personally one person (me) who has benefitted. To Be Rich or To Be Poor, ~ Rich would be better. Just is. Throw me in. Thanks.

* * * * *
Posted by: vito | June 25, 2008 8:54 PM
* * * * *
Vito:
* * * * *
Allow me to tell you what you are doing. S.I. Hayakawa, were he still alive, would say you are snarling. I can tell you are simply snarling at me because you made me out to be a Bush fan for my stated positions on this case. Snarling by human beings is unguided and illogical anger. That is true here because Bush had nothing to do with this case, and my likes or dislikes for Bush and his administration have nothing to do with my views. In fact, I don't particularly like Bush. I do, however, understand the law because that is my training. So I do understand this case. You should read the case sometime and then decide for yourself whether the court reasoned from correct first principles to the result. If you don't, that's fine too. But if you don't, at least have the civility not to snarl at those of us who do.